Leaderboard

You can keep comparing bigfoot to other things that are proven to exist all you want. It will not change the fact that bigfoot remains unproven. You could change that, you know, by providing some objective evidence for science to test. Instead you spend your time desperately trying to convince the world that bigfoot is virtually proven. Mistakes, lies, poor perception, etc, etc can easily explain bigfoot in its entirety. Why should I trust your powers of perception? Why should I accept your highly subjective version of events that only you witnessed? Particularly when there is no evidence that any event even occurred? Hence, the problem inherent in anecdotal evidence. Why should I listen to your highly improbable account? There is no evidence to support it, so why should I listen to you? Why should I trust in your ability to interpret what you call tracks that step over high fences? Honestly, that sounds ridiculous to me. I am certainly not going to accept it as evidence of an unclassified, large, bipedal ape running around North America. Extend that logic to every other useless bigfoot anecdote and the entire thing comes tumbling down. Without decent supporting evidence, why would anyone believe a single bigfoot story? That seems to me to be the perplexing question here.

My apologies, Shadowborn, I misinterpreted your earlier post. dmaker, so let's assume I don't know for a fact that they exist and tell me this..... What is making the tracks, in places where no one is expected to be, either to make them, or to stumble across them? Something is out there. What is it? Come up with something more likely that makes more sense than a hoaxer running around barefoot in the snow for miles without any expectation of anyone being around to get hoaxed. What is it that takes strides twice the length of a human stride and steps over four or five foot high fences and logs without disturbing the snow on them? If it isn't bigfoot, what is it? What else could it be? How can it be possible that every report, by every person that ever made one, is patently false, particularly when those reporting encounters include trained observers, such as LEOs, military members, and even wildlife biologists? How can every single person be blind, mistaken, lying, or addled? You are asking me to believe that every single person who has ever reported seeing one is wrong. What is the probability of that? Seriously? Do you not recognize that as the totality of the evidence mounts, the likelihood of your theoretical position diminishes correspondingly? Why should anyone listen to your, and yes I mean your own, highly improbable arguments? True, one hasn't been drug in by its ankles yet. But you've got to do better than to say "Everyone else is wrong." Do you not realize that your own positions require one to suspend belief in their fellow man, and in themselves? You are free to impugn anyone you want, but you must admit that your own position is rife with subjective dogma, assumption, and blatant dismissal of evidence as unreliable simply because of the subject matter.

Too funny. For the past year his mantra has been 'You skeptics need to read.' Read the books and reports. Read, read, read. "Read up if you want your faith in the scientific mainstream shaken badly" Suddenly, it doesn't matter what we've read..

"Real" is a subjective distinction. Who defines which piece of evidence is real and which is not? Who determines the criteria? dmaker has dismissed the entire body of reports as anecdotal, claiming that none of them can be trusted. To describe something as anecdotal and then investigate it is a realistic scientific approach. To describe something as anecdotal and simply dismiss it is not a realistic approach. It is just a subjective manifestation of his belief system.

Dr. Ketchums work started out as promising but there have been too many incidents that cast doubt on her professionalism as a scientist. I'm far from well versed on the technicalities of DNA research. However, just the "bear steak" issue was enough to cause me to question her research. I don't know if she started this research with the goal of finding an answer to the mystery and then got swept up and carried away by public interest? But, at some point, it became obvious that she had veered off the path of scientific discovery and was being fueled by her own personal agenda. I don't believe the government had anything to do with Ketchum's DNA debacle. Why would they even get involved when she was doing such a great job of self sabotaging her own research? Everything that made her look foolish, came out of her own mouth. Unless the government hypnotized her or manipulated her into making nonsensical comments; Dr. Ketchum was solely responsible for destroying her own credibility.

You know I agree with this but with the exception that when one has a encounter, that the encounter has evidence that backs up that encounter. That when you investigate the report that there is evidence of a creature was involve. This is how these cases should be treated at a level of pure skeptism until proven other wise. I never went into this trying to prove this to anyone else but my self. If some of you could be some what open and test what some have tried we might be a lot closer then where we are at now. The proof is out there in our wilderness of North America and these creatures are roaming through out the US in places that people might not think they are there. The signs are there and if you sit still you will hear it.

DWA, every single bingle gingle zingle time you talk about testing and evidence in the same sentence, you reveal your complete lack of understanding of both of those terms.

Well its all relative, a coastal brown Bear aint no Ape's lap dog. No way. A 1200 lbs Bear is a force to be reckoned with. And in Siberia big Bears are known to kill Siberian Tigers. The biggest Cats in the world...........

"Know" is a relative term. Nobody knows in the purest sense if bigfoot does not exist. But there is something called the educated guess and this is how many questions of knowing and not knowing are answered. If I knew nothing about bigfoot lore and bigfoot history I would be likely to say something like "anything's possible". But after having been exposed to the issue over a substantial length of time I can weigh it either positively or negatively for than matter. You know this, we all know this, we all know the concept of the "educated guess." So perhaps it' better to say , "I know that each and every piece of evidence I've seen has not been suitably good enough to allow me to draw a positive conclusion in favor of bigfoot existing. By being a person who has never seen one of these creatures in the wild and accepting they do not exist. Which is where I am not willing to accept and will not until the truth is out. They exist and I have accepted it and it does not matter if any body else does not want to. The truth will always be on my side no matter how many times people try to hide it. Ok, you guys are just being stubborn. This whole thing didn't start with a hypothetical thread. It started with consistent reports dating back hundreds of years, including Native American history. You can run from, rationalize, deflect, and deny; but you can't dismiss the fact that a body of evidence exists. The best you can do is ignore its totality and attempt to discredit it item by item. That takes true subjectivity (note this is the opposite of objectivity). From my perspective, not ever having heard of such a thing as a bigfoot at the time when I first came face to face with one, I was pristinely unprepared for the reality. At that point I learned they existed, but still didn't know what the heck they were. And at this​ point the debate is moot to me. What does interest me is understanding what drives your subjectivity. What is it about the existence of bigfoot that leads you to so adamantly pursue denial that you jump into a forum about something in which you do not (want to) believe? ​

IMHO you're sorta mixing and matching terms in a misleading way. "Habitat" is a place a thing can live long term sufficient to meet all their needs. In the case of a bigfoot report, there's no connection ... they can readily pass through terrain that is not "habitat" just as we do. Example? Under water. I cannot live long under water but I certainly can, and do, pass under water, and could potentially be observed there, when I'm swimming. It would be as mistaken for an observer who saw me underwater to infer that it is my habitat as it would be for an observer who saw a bigfoot on a salt flat to infer that that's their habitat. The implied connection between being observed in a place briefly and living there long term is invalid. In other words, I don't have any real qualms about a bigfoot report from Nevada. MIB

Actually that 10% 90% thing about brain function is a bit of a myth. What is really going on is that about 90-95% of the brain is engaged in unconscious activity- respiration, temperature regulation, digestion etc. The remaining is where consciousness seems to reside.

This is not the thread for counter arguments. Please try to stay on topic. The question, as stated in the OP, was what books have skeptics read. I answered the OP. Your opinion on skeptical counter arguments is not "...precisely what we are talking about." Also, what you think matters, insofar as what a skeptic has read, is irrelevant and off topic to this thread as well. Please feel free to carry on yet another of your anti-skeptic rants in the existence thread.

I've read: Legend Meets Science Bigfoot! The True Story of Apes in America , The Discovery of the the Sasquatch , The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story , Searching for Sasquatch:Crackpots, Eggheads and Cryptozoology Abominable Science! In fact, I signed my copy of The Discovery of the Sasquatch in honor of you, DWA. All one need to do is read that book and be exposed to every point you have ever made:

I have very flat feet. My foot print in the sand looks like the middle picture. For that reason I am very leery of declaring any human norm size footprint found where there are other signs of human presence as likely anything but human. The probability is just not good enough for me when 10 To 20 percent of certain ethnic human populations exibit signs of the mid tarsal break. If there are ten or 100 thousand humans for every BF then unless the size of the print exceeds human norms, it is less likely BF and more likely human just because of probability.

I was in the woods when I received a text telling me about Ray's hospitalization several days ago. I returned home last night, and today was the first opportunity I had to visit Ray. I just walked in the door from doing so. Ray is in good spirits, and for a dying man, he looks great. He is ready for the impending transition. We spent our hour and a half together talking about bigfoot, astronomy, interesting people, his rich and unique life, and other stuff. He told me about his books, some of which have yet to be published. He shared insights and stories. It was great. Back in 1997, I was road tripping with my soon-to-be (and now ex-) wife. I subscribed to the WBS newsletter, the Track Record, at the time, so I took a chance and called Ray Crowe when we were in Portland, OR. I was hoping to see the bookstore and some of his sasquatch artifacts kept in his bookstore's basement where the WBS met every month. Ray told me on the phone that all that stuff was over at Larry Lund's home because of a flood or something or other in the bookstore. Ray gave me Larry's number, which I called, and my ex and I spent four or five hours with Larry that night. The evening blew my mind. The thought that there were actually people into this stuff I guess hadn't really occurred to me at that point. I credit (or perhaps "blame" would be a better word) that night with accelerating me to wherever I find myself today. It started with that phone call. It started with Ray. Today, I thanked Ray for this. I'd be lying if I said I did this with dry eyes. I feel like we in the PNW all owe Ray a lot. He started the monthly meetings here in Portland, of which echoes can now be seen in HopsSquatch. He carried on the tradition of newsletters pioneered by the Bay Area Group and the Bigfoot Co-op (am I showing my age now?). He suggested to us that we always wear our "skepticals" while reading his newsletter, as it was raw data, no filters added, which is good advice for all bigfooters. He's not dead yet, but he is on his way to check out. He is/was not only a catalyst for my life path, I am happy to call him a friend. Think positive thoughts for friend of the 'squatch, Ray Crowe.

They exist. You really want a knockdown drag out you need a contender with WOOO written on both gloves : ) . Shadowborn , you did'nt mention on what caused the said "split" . I will not create a macro so you will have to come here and reread this line :0 Everyone of the reports cannot be fake,hoax, misidentification. currently there are 4836 reports on the BFRO and that does not include the ones they keep private. I have read a lot of them and there are more than several that are from what anyone should call reputable people, people that reporting a Sasquatch sighting could possibly have repercussions on their life. Law enforcement officers, wildlife personnell, doctors phsycologists etc. The number above is not all the reports, I know of a half dozen just around me that have never been reported and I am sure I am not alone in that on this forum. There are some of the above as, we all know, hoaxes, mis id's, But for arguments sake sake ( I do not believe no where near this figure) That 99% are fake / mis id's that means just from the "known" BFRO reports that there are at least 48 Sasquatches running around out there. How can anyone look at the number of people that have came face to face with what that person knows was not a human and tell them that they are mistaken or lying. The math adds up in favor of Sasquatch all day long.