Leaderboard

The problem isn't skeptics, it's the lack of evidence. The problem with a belief system based solely on sighting reports is apparent when you ask yourself what you don't believe. If you truly feel that Sassy exists because of unverified sighting reports then you also believe in Chupacabra, UFOs, Elves, Fairies, Dogmen, Jersey Devils etc, etc. You can't argue for the existence of Sassy solely on the strength of a sighting database yet argue against the existence of Ghosts, Wendigos, Skinwalkers, Lizardmen, Alien abductions or the like which also have their own databases. If you don't require hard evidence you believe in stories. If your belief in Sassy is rooted in the strength of an unverified database you and your arguments for existence are not relevant. You will never advance the field, you will never prove anything, you will always be disappointed in the outcome of discussions. Science and skeptics have the high ground - they admit that Sassy is possible yet unproven. Understand that although a few scientists believe in Sassy the vast majority do not and never will without verifiable samples. There has been a lot of testing recently and none of the samples returned any positive results. That doesn't mean it's impossible for Sassy to exist but it does mean that whatever sighting report the sample was collected from is suspect. It should raise even more doubts about the database itself - there is no other logical conclusion. It's frustrating to believers and skeptics alike to have hoaxers and con artists operating in this field. It's even more frustrating to have an interest in the subject and be open to the possibility of an unknown creature but have to wade through thousands of posts which argue for the existence of a creature solely on the basis of anecdotal stories alone. We all know stories don't prove existence, we all know stories will never prove existence, and we all know that anyone who continues to argue for existence based solely on stories isn't even relevant to the discussion. The problems in this field aren't caused by skeptics, they are caused by believers who don't, can't, won't get with the program. Stories won't do it, it will take evidence.

Dang.... Meldrum just sank DWA's just read the reports mantra. Oh the Irony.....

Take a seat before you finish reading this, but I'd venture to say that due to Dr. Meldrum being a human being, he's fully capable of being wrong. No really. He could be wrong. He's just throwing a randomly, non-testable number out there to sound sincerely authorative. So..... that's life in a nutshell.

I can only speak for myself. I grew up loving horror movies, specifically monster movies. My favourite creatures were always the beast men. Werewolf movies were at the top of my list. I discovered Bigfoot at 8 years of age in the third grade in my elementary school's library with the books of John Green, specifically these here... These books started my lifelong passion for Bigfoot. From the age of 8 until my late 20's I was an ardent believer of Bigfoot. I researched every bit of evidence put forward, ready every book I could get my hands on, and would passionately argue for the existence of Bigfoot. It was by so deeply pursuing all claims of evidence that I eventually found that each thread pulled on comes to nothing. It was about 8 years ago that I went from believer to fence-sitter and finally to being fully a skeptic. That did not diminish my love of the subject and passion for researching it. I still love Bigfoot movies, books, and other material, but I enjoy Bigfoot as a myth. What interests me now are reliable claims of evidence. The reason this interests me is because I do not think it is impossible for Bigfoot to exist. I have argued against those who have said that it is not possible for Bigfoot to exist. When asked I usually state that I put the possibility of Bigfoot existing to be somewhere between 0.01 - 1%. That may seem next to zero, but that extremely small margin is what keeps me interested. Recently there was a claim of a non-human primate arm found in Florida. This is precisely what interests me. It's not an anecdote, it's not a piece of blurry footage, it's not tale told round the campfire. It's flesh and bone and something that can be examined objectively and definitively. I went in with the same skepticism I have always had, but no less interest. After researching all the photos of the bones available to me, I concluded this was not a non-human primate arm. It was no primate, not mammal, not even an arm. It was the hind limb of an alligator. My conclusion was later confirmed by the scientists and professionals who examined the bones. I was not in any way disappointed by the conclusion, nor was I relieved, I was simply satisfied to have a definitive answer about that particular claim of reliable evidence. There's no emotional involvement in whether Bigfoot exists or not. The only thing I can say is that it would be incredibly awesome if Bigfoot did exist, but I have never seen any evidence that would persuade me to make that conclusion. There is evidence. There is a lot of evidence. The problem is that none of it is reliable. Another person can conclude differently and they are more than welcome to. Many of the friends and colleagues I have become acquainted with in the Bigfoot community over the years are of the opposite position as me, that Bigfoot does exist or most likely does. This is not a position I begrudge them nor do I try and convince them otherwise. If they've seen the same evidence, examined the same claims, and if they find it persuasive, I can only hope it motivates them to find better evidence of the same kind of quality we have for every other mammal species in North America. There is nothing wrong with believing, particularly when you haven't been able to see all the facts or have been influenced by believers who don't know or tell the whole story. I know what this is like precisely because I was a believer for so long. What is not cool, what I object to, is when that belief becomes like a cult behaviour. When people start playing Woods & Wildmen, doing an adult roleplaying game and they ostracize and seek to belittle and dismiss those who do not share there beliefs. This is precisely the same thing many believers have an issue with when dealing with people who think Bigfoot is nonsense. I have no problem with a believer asking me why I'm here. It's a valid question. What I have a problem with is being told I shouldn't be here because I don't think or believe the things everyone else does. Many Bigfoot believers like to fancy themselves as being maverick thinkers, open-minded champions of The Truth that the rest of us are sheeple and blind to see. The irony is that many of these people are the most close-minded and cultish, dogmatic I have ever encountered. I love the Scott Herriott's, the Henry May's, and the Steven Streufert's of Bigfootery because they are great people, their enthusiasm is awesome, and they don't get mired in the cult behaviour. These are people that I thoroughly enjoy discussing and debating the evidence with and also sharing our love for various Bigfoot culture things, movies, old documentaries, etc. For every ten allcaps pounding howlers, there is at least one person one person like that who makes it a pleasure to share the enthusiasm with, if not the belief. Henry May thinks he's seen Bigfoot twice, Scott Herriott once, Steven never. I have no interest in trying to take away there belief and they have no interest in trying to make me believe. So what's the deal with skeptics? If they're like me, they love Bigfoot as a subject, they're open to the evidence, they haven't been convinced by it thus far, but are always open to the possibility. We're as much a part of the community as those who believe.

Martin, that's gonna leave a mark.

But that's the beauty of it: I have nothing to make a decision about. It's just 'his opinion' about something not scientifically verifiable for a yea or nay. Then again, I've witnessed one with my own eyes. He can throw out numbers till he's exhausted, but I already know what he's wishing he did.

G'ah! I've been dihydrogen oxided, rick rolled, and now lighten up francis'd in 3 days!!! I'm losing it!

Serious question deserves a serious answer Dmaker....The best I can answer that is with the phrase, "You can't unring the bell" but I'll give it a shot. You've got all this stuff to explain so far that it seems it either gets explained in one fell swoop, ("Look...I shot this Sasquatch"), or it stays out there unanswered for a looooooong time. But, the mere passage of time is not going to do it for me because in all likelihood I'll be dead and gone in maybe 30-40 years judging by my family history and hoping no pianos get dropped on me. That is a blink of an eye. I think the probability is great that I won't see a definitive answer to this question before I croak, and you've got to be on board with that possibility to see the issue for what it is, I think. Of course, if a BF walks through my camp some dark night, I've got my answer, and screw y'all! :-) There are certainly lynchpins in the evidence though. You could, for instance have a dedicated person perfectly replicate the Patty film using period special effects. That would be huge development, and one I sort of root for because I like to see paradigms upended, even my own. There could be a confirmation that each and every alleged track was hoaxed, but you and I both know that ain't going to happen, so that is probably off the menu. I suppose the BFRO could announce their entire database was a fabrication, just in the interest of generating ratings for Finding Bigfoot. Highly doubtful too, because I have talked with too many people who have proven trustworthy here who have the same experience to tell. But yeah, if all of those things somehow did occurr? Sure, my interest will be gone, and I'd be quicker to dismiss my own weird occurrences as anything significant. But honestly, these things will perpetually be categorized as just unexpained, or they will be easily explained, but we are all probably doomed to live in this limbo zone for our entire lives. Such is the price of curiosity. The Amerindians always said the whites just couldn't stand a mystery. That remains true more often than not. You can't will knowledge into existence, you can only wait for it, help it along where you can, and recognize it when it arrives.

Proponent: Who dares question the reliability of the sacred database?! Skeptic: Dr. Meldrum Proponent: Well, it was probably taken out of context? He's privy to a lot of stuff...um, not sure, maybe counting Toejam and the others plus an over-correction factor? Skeptic: Priceless

I'd be careful with this line of reasoning. There are plenty of bigfoot proponents/believers who could have the same charges levied at them. Without disseminating the evidence you have, it's not intellectually honest to accuse people of rejecting it. Give folks the chance to evaluate your evidence and you might be surprised to gain some support. Let the evidence rise or fall on its own merits.

Apart from what I have happening or not... The BFRO sight has had lots of interesting sightings popping up, and the one from Cook County IL I posted above was just one of them, another one that caught my eye was a report from Northern Minnesota where a golf course worker spotted a tall 7 foot brownish red creature skirting the perimeter of the property on it's way to ? Well I have heard of several golf course reports, and I suspect that there are many more untold. I was golfing this afternoon along a greenway that runs down lake Michigan from southeastern Wisconsin to Northern Lake County IL where I have my home, another greenway runs east-west along a ridge near the states border, this is where I found a large black bear print several years ago. Power lines and railways are adjacent to those areas and farms fill in the much of the surrounding area. It is easy for me to see how they travel at night from area to area once you understand their methods. If I could only better understand the pattern of movement in this area and focus my research accordingly, that is why I study the reports to see if I can discover any patterns in travel or behavior. I guess I just like the challenge of trying to figure them out.

Without hearing the statement in it's full context, it's hard to tell if he means that 1 in every 10,000 bear sightings is a bigfoot, or that 9,999 of every 10,000 bigfoot sightings are bears. A subtle, yet very important distinction. Either way, it sounds an awful lot like a "Jeff Meldrum Ballpark Fact".

Very few scientists, including Sykes who I consider a main stream science skeptic, have devoted any significant field time. They have day jobs teaching or researching other areas. In some cases field biologists that work for the State have had encounters. But when the states they work for deny existence, they keep their mouth shut to keep their jobs. I contend that if a well funded scientist spent the better part of a year in a field study in the right area they might not have the required proof at the end of the year but they would know BF exists and most likely be a witness. But without the vindicating proof (body), they are just like the rest of us who are witnesses without proof. To get funding, risk the rest of your professional career, and take a year off to conduct BF research is more that most pragmatic scientists are willing to risk. A long term researcher in Oregon related an experience to a group of us this weekend he had with two scientists who he took camping in BF country. One was a PHD candidate in biology who was nearly done with his doctorate. The PHD candidate had a daytime sighting that lasted long enough for him to draw the BF. He refused to allow the drawing to be reproduced because, in his words, "He did not want his career to end before it started." That is the kind of professional pressure that exists for scientists to consider before they research BF even privately. Non scientists just don't understand those pressures because it directly impacts a scientists ability to get and hold jobs.

In turn, you make a very valuable observation. Thank you! There are far too many people sitting on the sidelines (or internet) TALKING rather than getting to the field and DOING. Too much sense of entitlement to the fruits of others' labors. In the context of edtiorial comment, I think it might be interesting to see what a forum that is open to the world for reading but to post, you have to pass some sort of screening might produce. Without the "noise" of the scoffers and pot-stirrers acting like graphite rods dampening the reaction, we might have already reached critical mass and produced proof. MIB