Leaderboard

I understand you. And I understand where you would feel insulted. I probably would too in your shoes. For that, I apologize. Of all the claims made by various different people here ( and the constant lecturing and chiding by one ), it is yours that I find the most difficult to easily dismiss. Not because I believe for a second that bigfoot exists, but because my impression of you as a person ( and your background) is that you are intelligent, logical and rational. But even that is allowing myself to fall into a logical fallacy. Frankly speaking I don't know you any better than anyone here really knows each other. You seem to be what you say you are: a rational, intelligent person that attended West Point, etc. But I don't know any of that for a fact ( I'm not saying it is not true, just trying to illustrate an objective point). But just because it is easier to dismiss a claim made by a foamy mouthed lunatic does not validate the identical claim made by a calm, rational person. I have to bear that in mind. It is fallacy that is easy to fall prey to. It comes down to the evidence for me. It does not matter who is making the claim when there is no evidence that can be used to support it, I must still dismiss it. I am not going to hazard a guess at an explanation for your sighting. That would most likely insult you and I have no wish to do so. I can only hope that people understand that my interpretation of the evidence is that bigfoot exists solely as a social construct. From that conclusion flows alternate explanations for anyone's bigfoot sighting. It does not matter who they are or what they claim. In fact, it is that aspect of this phenomenon that I find the most interesting. The propagation of the myth.

Ok by me. See below. Expressions of personal opinion don't bother me in the least. Constant bludgeoning does, whether the source is skeptic or believer. At this point I generally don't feel a need to convince anyone of anything, but every once in a while I get the sense that newer members may feel suppressed by voluble and committed denialists, This is when I do feel a need to throw out an occasional countervailing thought. Particularly when I read statements that belittle people's experiences. Give and take is good. Suppression or attempted domination is not. And, for the record, I often see statements from what you call believers that I consider unsupportable based on my encounters and experience. And you may notice that I'll occasionally comment on those.

I don't think you have to be a scientist to weigh in here or any thread for that matter nor do I feel anyone here should feel threatened because no scientist is ever going to classify sassy on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone. Use the discussion to critically examine what you are basing you claims on and consider how to proceed. A personal encounter may satisfy you or even many on this forum but it certainly isn't going to satisfy any serious scientist. Think about it - you don't truly accept personal encounters if they involve fairies, UFOs, Nessie, Champ, dogmen or chupacabras. Why would science or anyone accord a sassy experience any more weight? Your encounter may be all you need for you or close friends and family but to everyone else it's an anonymous anecdotal story. It doesn't rise to the level of courtroom testimony - we can't examine the evidence, the site, the background or state of mind of the witness and no way can the witness be even gently cross examined on here without 37 posts immediately coming to defend the witness and the "evidence". You would never agree that an anonymous statement should be used against you or your family in court as "evidence" because you don't truly feel that an anonymous account is evidence. Being mad or hurt about the situation isn't going to change anything. I'm certainly going to continue posting in any thread I feel like hoping that if I can change even one serious researchers perception about what it's going to take it will be well worth it. Pointing out the fact that anecdotal accounts aren't evidence doesn't equate to calling everyone with an encounter a liar, fool, druggie, or mentally ill. It's just the plain truth and until the sightings databases are verified (impossible for most) or given some sort of exam and rating they will essentially be worthless to any serious research. If you want to channel your passion into something productive start working on a database that you can trust and trust that it will bring an interesting day that much sooner.

My greatest disdain isn't for skeptics, but rather those that claim special knowledge but are conveniently bound not to reveal said secret knowledge. Stick a fork in 'em, they're overdone.

This is a key example of where I think the logic employed in this phenomenon start to veer off the tracks. The correct answer here is simply " I don't know". If the track is too ambiguous to nail it down to any known animal by qualified experts ( not necessarily Joe six pack having a picnic with his family), then it is either not distinct enough or have enough shape integrity to be properly identified as coming from any animal. Period. Once you open the door to well if it can't be explained then it must be bigfoot, then that is when things fall apart. Wild speculation in place of " I don't know" gets you nowhere useful. It is part of what leads to every tree break, and every noise in the night being attributed to bigfoot.

Back atchya. Within the practical context of this forum, I would say that those who speak from belief are less objective than those who speak from careful analysis. Some evidence is clearly hoaxed and must be objectively dismissed. Some evidence is inconclusive and cannot be used to prove existence, but neither can it be used to disprove existence. An objective individual acknowledges that the question of existence is open. One who states that all inconclusive evidence can be dismissed, and therefore existence is disproven, is not speaking objectively, they are speaking from personal belief. And finally, some individuals, and even groups, have had clear, unmistakable encounters. For these people the question of existence is no longer at issue, I among them, having been within touching distance more than once. Still, though I know conclusively that they do exist, I acknowledge that until someone else stands face to face with one, the question of existence is still valid for them. But to have someone tell me that I am mistaken, for no reason other than that they believe that bigfoot do not exist, is amusing, and at times insulting.

These types of discussion are entirely healthy for the forum. Not my fault or problem that the evidence can't hold up to a beating now and then.

^^^^^ I have felt the same way as JDL stated above when reading some posts here. There gets to be a vibe that repels discussion of experiences or encounters and that you will be taken to task via circular questioning that leads back to ,, it is crazy to think sasquatch because sasquatch lacks this or that ,,. I should mention that it may not be as noticeable to those who can't relate due to a lack of an experience or encounter, it is an underlying tone in discussion with a regular pattern that is discouraging for some who wish to share. I can honestly say that I have spoken with several people here privately who wish to share information but will not due so publicly for this reason. They did not come to post something interesting to receive a debate or argument, they wish to network, share information and theorize all to learn about anything bigfoot. So many of these threads boil down to an existence or evidence argument rather than what ever the topic was originally aimed at. There really should be a debate area here on the forums to channel this.

If there is one meme I see repeated here that I would like to escort to the trunk of a car, blindfold, gag and drive to the Meadowlands and summarily dispatch it is this: "Evidence I don't find compelling I don't consider proof, which means it is not evidence", and also its demon-twin, "If you can't test it, it isn't evidence." Could we once and forever quit confusing this already confusing subject with expressions like these, pretty please? I get that you don't consider a lot of things to be "proof" to you, and you might be shocked to know many proponents don't either, BUT... whether you find it persuasive or not, it is evidence. Please stop saying it is not. Something you can point to, describe, question somebody about, investigate, map, photograph or post about on an internet forum to help explain your opinion IS evidence (and not necessarily proof, yeah, we get it).

Bottom line for me. NO KILL.... We can find other ways to study this awesome creature.