Leaderboard

Those sort of self absorbed slightly veiled insults are just as bad as anything any scofftic does.

I have a simple request of you that will settle your claims for all - Please present just one recognized as reputable scientific journal that substantiates your claims of reports as being testable and repeatable evidence.

Oh that all would realize this fact and practice what they preach.

Well I added my two cents to fixing the problem. If you guys honestly think that things will somehow work out without some sort of separation (which worked with the Paranormal talk) then have at it. I don't see any rational solution otherwise. I see the problem here going way beyond just trolling, denying, and going off-topic. A lot of people get angry when you bring science, skepticism, or debunking into a thread about an experience. Others get angry when you bring 'knowing' or 'special knowledge' into an evidence and science-based debate. These things are basically incompatible with each other and belong in different areas. The so-called denialists (which exist on both sides) are just the extreme left and right of the spectrum.

It's not my job to make people act like rational adults. I am spending the day on a rare dad-daughter date with my 3 year old girl. You'll all need to act like grownups without my constant attention. Also, I really resent the implication that I designed this thread's title to inflame tensions. You are way out of your lane, SWWA.

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore or even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.

'tis interesting and perhaps instructive that a thread on derailing itself gets derailed by exactly the people and exactly the approaches to the topic under discussion. Hmmm. "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." MIB

Nothing could be further from the truth Drew. It's about people who ridicule, not criticize.

I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I wanted to give my thoughts on the subject... For quite some time now I've been considering if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF. My two main sticking points are the fanatical "Bigfoot exists", "No they don't", "Yuh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" echo chamber and the insistence by both sides that the issue must be proven one way or another. There has been much debate recently about the participation of the skeptic/scofftic/denialist (referred to hereafter as SSD's) on the forum. Often quoted is this paragraph from the intro to the forum's Rules & Guidelines: None of this is given as a binding rule, but the principle that if one comes here with "preconceived and immovable notions about bigfoot" then there can be no expectation of "thought-provoking debate" is quite clear. The two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Without conceding the possibility, no matter how small, that bigfoot might, might exist, then any "discussion" will inevitability devolve into a grade school ***-for-tat that stifles discussion and frustrates a significant portion of the membership who simply want to talk about bigfoot.What is also vital to the debate is the idea that the above principle applies not only to the SSD, but to the True Believer (TB), those who are 100% certain of bigfoot's existence without a sighting of their own. If the TB's cannot bring themselves to admit that someone might have a legitimate reason for not believing that bigfoot exists, we are at loggerheads again. That leaves us with the Knowers, those who claim clear, unambiguous, unmistakable sightings of an unknown large hairy biped. There is no respectable way to deny these claims, and not being present at the time of their encounter, I am happy to accept their claim barring other facts which come to light to contradict it. For the sake of argument, the Knowers exist as an entity unto themselves, and have no real bearing on the endless SSD/TB vicious circle. It seems to me that the FMT, the other administrators, and the Steering Committee here need to decide if we can allow those on both sides of the debate (who staunchly refuse to give any quarter to the other side) to continue their blind-arguing-the-blind antics. The fact we must all face (Knowers excluded. They have their personal proof) is that there is no proof either way. I am a proponent who tries to remain skeptical in the truest sense, and respect those who have thoughtfully reached a different conclusion. What I can't abide is the disrespectful and dismissive dogmatism of both the SSD and the TB, as well as their ongoing feud which serves only to derail many otherwise reasonable discussions, and poison the well here on the BFF. I understand that more rules here would further burden the good folks who volunteer their time as moderators, but unfortunately see no other alternative. Please understand that I am not advocating a stifling of debate. The behavior I am describing, and arguing for the banning of such, is not debate or discussion in any reasonable sense, but is instead merely a peeing contest between two immovable and closed-minded factions who refuse to give one inch to the other side. I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject.

Nothing I said was being critical of you. You complained about the thread going off topic and I was trying to be constructive and throw out some ideas that might allow an original poster to have some control of his thread. No such rules exist now but nearly everyone thinks something needs to be done. Other wise they always degrade into the same circular arguments about existence. Only the original poster knows where he wants the thread to go. I think the OP should have more say about that. But that is just me I guess. Can you see how I might interpret this as being critical of me? As far as guiding the conversation or managing the discussion, please refer to the last sentence of my original post: I spoke my piece and wanted to hear other voices/viewpoints, not moderate a debate. I don't have a solution, sorry. Do you really think that asking some here to refrain from following certain lines of discussion will yield positive results? I'm skeptical, but then again I'll admit that I haven't tried it much. When I have, though, the results have always been sub-par. It seems I've been taking fire here for being MIA at times, but please remember that some of us have plenty of daily life and responsibilities to deal with before we can stop and focus on an online purse fight about bigfoot. My two guiding philosophies are those of self-determination and personal responsibility. First, one should be free to make one's own decisions about what to believe and do, and second, that one is responsible for the results and repercussions of those decisions. The logical expession of these philosophies requires one to act in an intelligent and respectful manner. I don't believe that I am responsible for anyone's behavior but my own. That is why, from a philosophical standpoint, I am slow to try steering the conversation here. I'm not sure that it can (or should) be done, anyhow.

It would be cool if you could record it and share the recording. Sounds, like smells or tastes, are extremely subjective. Two people experiencing the same thing may describe them entirely differently. MIB

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm no more off topic than someone that wants to tout how science recognizes reports as true evidence. I'll try to do better!

Hello DWA, You're on the money with that. This thread allowed a lot to get aired out; there's no doubt that there's more members on the Forum who have things that bother them in varying degrees but this is a start, and a good one. This thread also showed that even difficult situations and waverings can realign to a topic in the end. Not all threads will be as challenging as this one has been and nothing says anything is really settled but it served as a goo measure for what can be accomplished with a bit of focus. it would be good to hear from others on whether or not any of this sounds reasonable to work on. Hello See-Te-Cah NC, Uh....Mr. Chief Administrator?....Ahem....Uh......you're off topic

I'm not sure what is worse, skoftics or proponents obsessed with them. There has almost always been a pinned thread up top (its name would change now and then) where these groups could hash out the existence issue. Fine. Now just enforce staying on topic in the other threads a bit better. No need to ban groups, or limit posts, or cross reference JREF accounts.

See - Totally understood, I didn't mean to imply that the forum, forum rules or forum management were the final authority on vetting any potential evidence or proof. I do feel that the rules could be modified to acknowledge the fact that we are in the 21st century without hampering discussion on anyone's sighting or report(s) or any potential evidence while limiting unwanted off-topic debate. Would anyone be willing to consider something like this? While we encourage the many viewpoints our members hold we are first, and foremost, a bigfoot forum. We obviously feel it's possible bigfoot exists and that discussions involving bigfoot and possible evidence can and should occur in an adult manner. Because the BFF feels it possible that bigfoot is a real flesh and blood animal we feel it only makes sense to treat it as such in the General Forum where interaction is possible between members from different backgrounds. In an attempt to foster common ground posts in the General Forum involve the expectation that a poster acknowledges the possibility that bigfoot exists and also acknowledges that bigfoot will never be widely recognized as anything more than a possibility without the consensus of the scientific community. While we hope members will continue to relate their personal sightings and encounters for the benefit of all members we recognize the impossibility of them being used as evidence or proof for anyone who didn't personally experience the event. We want and encourage spirited debate on all topics in the General Forum but will not tolerate personal attacks - attack the argument not the member! To prevent further problems and limit unwanted debate the following guidelines are being put in place for the General Forum: 1. Posts that fail to allow for the possibility of bigfoot shall be considered trolling. 2. Posts that purport that bigfoot is or can be recognized outside of the current standards used by science shall be considered trolling. 3. Posts that purport that sightings or personal encounters are evidence or proof to anyone who didn't experience the event shall be considered trolling. 3. Posts that equate any evidence (video, audio, footprint, etc) short of a body to "proof" shall be considered trolling.

Hello DWA, How to put this tactfully I don't know but countering a denialist with "BF exists" as a repeated club is trolling too even though this Forum isn't technically an anti-BF Forum. This cuts both ways. Showing up on threads and constantly telling people they don't read and don't look at the evidence IMHO is trolling.Proponents and denialists have the same evidence One says no existence and the other says yes existence- ad infinitum. Tell you what (getting back on topic now here ) bring that debate onto a thread that is about something else NOW and see what happens. See if it's tolerated. My guess is that it won't be. My guess is that members are starting to get this.

But another possible scenario is that they will just move to another venue that is free.

Hello Chasing Rabbits, I disagree. I've seen both skeptics and denialists who are very well informed. "Where's the body?", "Where are the bones?", and "Where are the fossils?" are all good questions and no one can deny it. But what I truly, truly, don't understand is why folks JUST AREN'T GETTING that those questions, even though they may appear on threads, don't mean that proponents need to weigh in and become a party to the inevitable, unwinnable debate about existence to the extent that the original topic of the thread becomes all but obliterated. Hardline denialists or hardline proponents are NOT the problem or the issue; where, when, and for how long they end up conducting their debates IS the issue. Is ANYONE capable of understanding this one very critical point? I think there is a feeling of futility when reasons have been given for why bodies, bones and fossils are rare/non-existent and the same questions are brought up ad nauseum, or the reasons are ignored. It's as though people think if an animal or plant falls down a ravine, it will become fossilized, when the process of fossilization is dependent upon factors such as soil pH, soil mineral content, humidity, temperature, etc. Ditto for bones. And even when these basic geological and biological facts are brought up, they are ignored or worse, mocked. As for bodies, I agree with you. There is a lack of bodies, but a growing number of undetermined tissue samples. Which brings up a general pet-peeve regarding scientific papers: people interpret phrases such as "undetermined at this time", "more studies needed at this time", as "no evidence (or "proof") case closed, moving right along" when these phrases mean by using the current technology or current body of data they can't conclude if something is true or false, iow, the case isn't closed. And the futility leads to frustration to the point that posters either leave or begin to quarrel. Note that I use the word quarrel, because what happens is not argument. <sigh> I give up. You folks are hopeless.

Hello DWA, Honestly, reread your post and tell me what it has to do with this thread. If you can't then I'll tell you- it has NOTHING to do with this thread or the point of this thread. Why did you even bring it up? addressing someone else's post that was also off topic is not a valid excuse either just so you know. The incongruences are almost unfathomable. What to do about members that bring existence debates onto threads that are not about existence is this thread's topic. Are you not able to see that or are you purposely being disruptive? Again, me, the broken record: THIS THREAD IS TO DISCUSS WHAT TO DO ABOUT EXISTENCE DEBATES THAT COMMANDEER THREADS. There's absolutely NOTHING difficult about this. Good grief this is like herding cats LOL! Bonehead74, where are you?

Firstly, the forum's stance on the creature is clearly expressed: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules The CFZ (including the BFF) has no official stance on any single aspect of the Bigfoot debate. The CFZ does not 'believe' that Bigfoot exists, or 'believe' that it does not exist, but that the evidence makes it worthy of discussion and further investigation. The members and Moderators may take a different view. That is entirely up to the individuals concerned. That being said, and while it is very difficult to pin any one opinion on a site with members as diverse as ours, there are some generalizations that can be made regarding the feeling of the board (assuming Bigfoot exists): Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp. We, as a forum, cannot, and will not, make a determination on what constitutes evidence or proof. I can assure you that if/when sufficient evidence is presented it will stand up to scrutiny. Sighting reports, IMO, are circumstantial evidence at best. Although exciting to read, they're nonetheless baseless as compared to the PGF, as an example. Whether or not you believe the film depicts a real Bigfoot, it's what I'd consider evidence. Imagine if Patterson/Gimlin had come back and told everyone that they'd seen Patty... it would have nowhere near the same effect because it's a report - Unsubstantiated. Heck, we can't even agree on the authenticity of the film after decades of debate. Why then should we consider a report to be empirical evidence? Circumstantial evidence? I can go with that, especially when there are large numbers of them. I always try to allow the membership to determine what constitutes evidence. It's not my forum. It belongs to the membership. I'm afraid that as long as the creature remains elusive, perhaps even being non-existent, we'll never really agree as to what constitutes proof. Unfortunately, it will take a specimen to prove it without dispute, and even then there will be those that doubt the cold body on the slab. My $.02.

This would not make it any better.The only "extraordinary" evidence Denialists will accept is a bloody corpse. Which is to say they need proof before they will accept ANY evidence people associate with a mythical creature. Which of course from a proponents view this is putting the cart in front of the horse. Because if its a real animal and it leaves behind footprints, tree breaks and howls at night? Then they need to dicepher the evidence and put themselves into a good area to take a picture or shoot it. (lets face it, the vast majority of researchers run around with a camera and dental resin, and not a rifle) The frustrating thing for the proponent then becomes thus......... I posted my picture of my foot print up and denialists tell me its everything from a Bear to a hoax. So am I recieving honest feedback or not? Denialists must be self aware that IF there is a real creature out there? Then the feedback they give to a proponent that is getting close to the prize could very well be detrimental to the search. Which is why its so important to come to this forum skeptical but not without some room that this animal could exist.

You could always just create new forum categories that would separate the head clashing, by maybe creating general categories like 'evidence supported' topics and 'anecdotal' topics. That way one area could focus on the presented evidence pertaining to a video/encounter/whatever, and discussion/conclusions would be expected to adhere to backing of claims, etc. The other area could focus on purely an anecdotal viewpoint, knowing, etc., with no fear of having to provide evidence to back any claims. It may not satisfy the scoftic issue completely but will at least give people a more suitable area to stand on their soapbox. Just an idea anyways.

I am just throwing this out here, can we all try to act like adults? Is there any reason for a skeptic not to have an open mind? Is there any reason a know-er can't be skeptical of claims. Just like the things stated about Dr. Matt J.. Can't we at least consider maybe he saw something that might have done a number between the ears? Maybe we should feel sad for the guy and not ridicule him. I am standing in the middle on the BF issue and I get mad when folks know BF doesn't exist simply because there is not one single person or group of people that can be everywhere and see every creature in existence. You would have to know all and see all to make a claim that BF isn't real. If you base the existence of BF on hard evidence then skeptics and proponents agree things need to improve. Tonight I am headed to Northern Wisconsin and the U.P. of Michigan for some night driving with a dash cam. Call me a fool if you will, but I am trying to find out an answer for myself. We all should consider giving more input from our own unique perspectives without all the hardliner dogma. Take this for what it's worth - both sides also agree hoaxers and money grabbers are crippling the subject. Who wouldn't love to go on a search of the woods along with Crow and DWA - that would be both fun and funny!

This is not the anti-Bigfoot Forum, check the rules, call it bias if you must, I think the proponent side of things is relatively free and clear from bias, but of course I'm biased, since I"m a knower.

Tenors are the worst; however, if we start letting baritones in here, I'm out. Hmm, if only someone would put forth a comprehensive plan on how to compartmentalize or naturally separate the various groups, so that there would be less conflict and a disincentive against being disruptive (like limiting the number of posts or ability to start repetitive threads), while still accomodating different camps of Bifgoot afficianados. If only we had a framework to start that conversation, something that marshalled the facts about the problem, various assumptions that could be made about the issues, and suggest ways to resolve the problem. Anyone know where we could find something like that? Bueller? Anybody??

Hello MIB, I know, and in a way you're right. But the underpinnings of why members derail is an important one and one that might not get openly addressed otherwise. It's something like this: There is a topic. All the members who read the title know what the topic is. And yet there is a disregard for the topic and worse, a disregard for the OP who started the thread. THAT"S where the problem begins and I can't think of anyone who could deny it. It's all about respect or the lack thereof toward the member who initially posted the topic. That's where the issue really is. One of the prime rules of the Forum is respecting fellow members but when a proponent and denialist go head to head on someone else's thread it shows a lack of self discipline, then the respect for the topic, and the OP, goes out the window.

Hello Crowlogic, Of course, but when the demand is never met to one's satisfaction at what point does one simply walk away? Or should I say at what point would you walk away. Or maybe more to an inner, more personal point, CAN you walk away. It may be something you might want to consider? And if you haven't already, then why haven't you?

As I said up-thread, I'm all about lively discussion about the state of the evidence. I have all the time in the world to listen to somebody who is prepared to tell me why a particular sighting is suspicious because, "That river don't flow that way", or, "There are no ruffed grouse in that area that time of year", or "That species of tree does not grow at that elevation", etc., etc... Tell me you have studied the morphology of primate feet and bipedal locomotion was your minor in college, or that you were trained in linguistics at Langley, and I will be all ears if you feel the evidence is not genuine. Instead? We have a contingent who will not even concede the evidence IS evidence. Now, how do you form a civil and productive conversation around that precept? You just don't. Believe me, there are many here like me who have yet to have the first conversation of that kind with some of our learned members. Instead, when I'm confronted with something like that... when I'm not in the mood to ignore you...I'm going to call you to task to give me something other than "Nuh-uh!" Frankly, you deserve no better treatment when you think you can woof your way through a conversation that does require at least an entry level of understanding of the natural world and all the disciplines that touch on this issue. You say you have that knowledge? Fine. Prove it with your analysis and we'll all be much better off. Cracking wise like Jack Horner with a plumb on your thumb when you haven't voiced one intelligent science based rebuttal to the specific evidence proposed is, again, a pathetic waste of our time. I am not for limiting the participation at all. I am saying, "Bring something to the party or kindly just shut up and leave."

I just want to say first in this thread before posting further that Dmaker and I had a really long talk and remain friends, I used a quote of his earlier in this thread that he felt that I had taken out of context from the ISF. I apologize to Dmaker for that, he didnt ask me to make a public statement, but I felt compelled to do so here and now. Now what I want to say is that there is a evidence and then there is proof, big difference. Despite not having proof of existence this forum allows for the possibility that it does indeed exist. Evidence is what proponents use in order to find said proof if there is any to be found. I fully support a skeptic looking at evidence and recognizing mundane explanations for said evidence. Even if I'm on the opposing end of the argument (skookum cast = Elk lay vs. whatever). What I dont support is when a denialist argues that all evidence is a hoax or whatever based on their stalwart stance that in no way can Sasquatch, or any other cryptid hominiod on the planet exist because science would have found it by now. What if the denialist is wrong? If your constantly looking for the zipper is there a chance to overlook something? We proponents are laymen, we go out, we look (sometimes your horse cracks your ribs and you dont make it out) and I dont think its too much to ask from the skeptic side of the debate to show people some respect about this subject on a forum dedicated to the subject....... that's all I ask. I'm not suggesting you take my tree break find as proof of existence, I know that, I'm just looking for sign that possibly might lead me to proof. And if in the end, I'm wrong? That's OK too, it was my time, fuel, patience and enjoyment in being in the outdoors........and if you mock me for being a schmuck, I'd appreciate it if you did somewhere other than here. I do not need to be "saved", I get plenty of time in hunting and fishing and leading a normal life, thank you. Existence of the creature is a open question here, despite the fact that it is not an open question most anywhere else.

Field work this morning. Back to my first field work area on a new mountain bike. More of a test ride for the bike than anything and did not think anything would happen. Nice to cover 8 miles in a couple of hours instead of half a day. Anyway saw evidence of some movements down a steep slope in a chute off a cliff area. Slope was about 45 degrees. Could not figure why anything was coming down that slope. But something big that did not leave hoof marks in the soft dry dirt was making skidding tracks down the slope. It occurred to me that arms would make the descent less suicidal as there were things along the side to grab onto. Deer or elk prints would have shown in the soft soil. Decided that would be a good location for a game camera to find out what is using that chute. I came back past the area and looked again on the other side of the trail that overlooks the river. Found about a 14 inch footprint there off the trail margin on the side towards the river and evidence of travel down to the river with disturbed vegetation. Interestingly this area is just below (1/4 mile) where I found my first BF footprint in 2011. In that case a BF had come up from the river headed up the mountain. Looks like I will be putting a game camera there to find out what is going on.

The BFF is open to anyone who can follow the rules and conduct themselves in a respectful manner. If you feel a member(s) is personally annoying, use the ignore feature. If you feel someone is violating a rule, use the report feature at the bottom of each post. The staff on this forum do an outstanding job but they are not mind readers. And let me say this- If you are an individual who believes that Bigfoot does not and cannot exist, you log on for the sole purpose of reading the content and mocking the membership here and elsewhere....I can tell you that there is a growing intolerance to that mindset on this forum.

Perhaps not. Perhaps it will successfully roll along for many years operating as the best little "woo-house" in Texas. However, there was a time when it was possible for people interested in researching Bigfoot could find information of value in the general forums. That seems to have faded into the morass described in the OP. While there are still members interested in having critical discussions and weighing evidence at least somewhat impartially, it feels like you have to search harder and harder to find them and you have to have your discussions quickly before a thread becomes derailed. If the BFF's goal/core mission is to be just another internet coffee chat club social gathering where people can discuss Bigfoot, perhaps it should make that clear and drop other pretensions, like the SSR, or moderating threads to ensure that discussions stay on point. Just feels like trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions w/one saddle.