Separating Fact From Fiction With Bigfoot

[Guest Lesmore]

Here is the problem as I see it. We are the problem. The 955 members here and others like us. We are the ones paying attention to the subject.

All 955, or just the ones that regularly post. I know there will a certain chunk of the members that just read, rarely or never post. But I think (could be wrong) that the ones who engage regularly through posting, are the ones paying attention, for the most part.

Believe in bf or not we're the ones paying attention and if we can't get certain things right, nobody else will start paying attention (without a body). Yes, a body will solve all but that doesn't mean the puzzle should not be attempted to be solved and hopefully get to the answer. When I say we are the problem, I mean the people that say yes to everything.

Yes, the ones that say yes to everything and assume that BF exists...without using their full critical faculties.

Now I know that some here say no to everything but there is a big difference. When people who submit their encounter know no matter what they say, it will be met with a resounding "YES", that gives them free licence to say anything, and do they ever. They know that there is no chance at hearing "NO" from certain people. It will always be Yes. Here is an experiment, If you have never said "no" to a blobsquatch (there are too many people that do this to count) go there and do it now. lol It will be liberating. If you are one of the people that sees a blobsquatch swimming in a lava in Hawaii and says "hmmm, I always thought they might be fire retardant" well here is your chance. Go there and now say "I'm sorry my friend but I'm going to have to place this in the "B" pile." Nobody wants to be in the "B" pile. If we add to it, it will eventually shrink and we will be closer to have separated fact from fiction. Even if it's only a little bit, we now moved the subject into a positive direction.

I'm not sure Leopards change their spots and if they do...only temporarily.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Lesmore

[Guest ajciani]

I wonder exactly how "bad" the people on this forum are? I have read in some places that the BFF is just a bunch of pathological skeptics (aka skoftics).

For example, I think most of us here cringe when we hear about the self-luminescent, angry red eyes of the sasquatch. We know that there is nothing remotely similar in any animal on the planet (except maybe some deep water creatures), and so we shoot it down as fanciful. That gets us a "skeptic" label?!

[Guest Matt K]

That's actually not a good analogy, and doesn't serve to advance sasquatch.

What if:

a.) the kids next door had built a model flamingo, had put it in your yard for a laugh, and when you ran to get your camera, they retrieved it?

b.) you had a realistic dream of the flamingo to the point where you were fairly convinced you were awake and that it actually happened?

c.) you were actually talking nonsense and engaging in a form of wish-fulfillment, including faking the footprint?

There's no way to separate these three possibilities from the above case that you mention, each of which could explain your experience equally well. That's why the scientists get fussy. All three of the above demonstrably have happened and continue to happen. In short, you assume the truth of a subjective event and then proceed to demonstrate how it can't be scientifically proven. Why make that assumption to begin with? It could be erroneous.

Secondly, the analogy is problematic in another way: Flamingoes are known to exist. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Even living in the UK (as I now do), I could take you to see some (with no 'wood knocking', thermal cameras, or feelings-of-spookiness necessary) within an hour's drive of where I live. They've been studied and observed for hundreds of years, including being the stars of some of the highest-definition, highest-quality nature footage ever shot. If you wanted to take more footage of the same, it wouldn't be hard to find them and get it; we know where they can be found and we know their habits. Contrast this with Sasquatch.

So, please, let's have no more hand-waving nonsense over "hiding behind science". There's a good reason that the scientific method is the way it is; it's to try and eliminate as many of the different ways of being wrong as possible. Does that mean it's sometimes late getting to things that some people have known about for a while? Yes, but it also means that when it gets there that everything's been to done to rule out a mistake having been made along the way. Whenever people use flowery rhetoric and bad analogies to suggest that we ought to admit "more ways of potentially being wrong" as valid, it doesn't highlight the flaws in science (there are some), it actually puts the proposer in a bad light, as the natural conclusion is, "What would someone's motives be for wanting to do that?"

Here, let me take my "hand-waving nonsense" and dumb it down for you. First off it wasn't an analogy of comparing flamingos to Bigfoot. It was a fictional scenario to illustrate how the scientific method cannot always be applied to certain situations as a means of obtaining proof of the occurrence. Events that take place cannot be proven with the use of the scientific method. People who demand or request the scientific method be applied to such situations, with the knowledge that it would be impossible to prove these type events using the scientific method, are in my opinion "hiding behind science." If something cannot be proven by scientific means, then it is ridiculous to only accept scientific proof of such.

So since you find my thoughts as nothing more than "hand-waving nonsense" "flowery rhetoric" and "bad analogies" you tell me what my motives for doing so are? Do you think I'm a part of some secret anti-science Bigfoot agenda, attempting to take down the scientific world through the use of online message boards?

Which by the way, I'd much rather use flowery rhetoric than pompous unsubstantiated condescension any day.

[bipedalist]

there are lots of those that don't want to hear this, -well let's just say this is a fact; The only people who can (at this time) discern fact from fiction about Sasquatches are those that HAVE/HAD direct ongoing contact with them. Some of you are laughing, that's your job. Ignorance of the subject is no excuse for dismissing it's existance outright. I noticed a rather long list someone made above, well I can say with absolute certainty that at least three of those things are indeed true. I don't expect any one to believe this, as you haven't experienced it for yourself. And until you have, you can speculate, deny, and claim "just stories" all you want. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A LOT of claims are only extraordinary to those that don't know the facts. (I'm not saying all claims), But if somweone knows for absolute certain FACT that Sasses do indeed exist, it is NOT an extraordinary claim to anyone else that knows that they exist. Seperating fact from fiction becomes a game for some. When all is said and done many people (some in high places) are gonna eat LOTS of crow.

Not knowing is so frustrating, but, that doesn't give license to flat out say someone is full of it. Those that have not had experiences of their own are NOT in a position to say what is or isn't. JMO -Knuck

Knuck increasingly I'm seeing the significance of your opinion (it's fact to you). Just as an example, if John Green's database has hundreds of eyeshine reports (of differing colors BTW), and BFRO and other databases many such reports as well, and then many unofficial or non-public reporter's state that similar phenomenon seem evident. Then I'm thinking there may be more fact than fiction to the reports/observations and maybe the predictive models need to be tweaked. I still will reinforce those that bring their observations to this forum with respect without being a "yes" man, game on---keep on squatching. Just my humble opinion as a member, 2 peso's and all that.

[Guest Knuck]

Knuck increasingly I'm seeing the significance of your opinion (it's fact to you). Just as an example, if John Green's database has hundreds of eyeshine reports (of differing colors BTW), and BFRO and other databases many such reports as well, and then many unofficial or non-public reporter's state that similar phenomenon seem evident. Then I'm thinking there may be more fact than fiction to the reports/observations and maybe the predictive models need to be tweaked. I still will reinforce those that bring their observations to this forum with respect without being a "yes" man, game on---keep on squatching. Just my humble opinion as a member, 2 peso's and all that.

Thanks BP. I appreciate the vote of confidence. I'm not trying to convert anyone who doubts, or doesn't believe/know. Yes, to them, these are all just "stories". A form of entertainment if you will. Some will have fun at other's expense, (on both sides of this puzzle). Last year at this time, I was a believer, hoping that all the "stories" I read, sightings, and experiences, were at least partly true. In my wildest dreams I would have never put myself in the position of knowing without a doubt, that Sasquatches were real, living animals. For several months, I suspended judgement as to exactly what I was experiencing. All the pieces added up, but I refused to jump to conclusions. Then, with patience, mutual trust, and persistance of routine, I got the answer that so many seek. I do for a fact know. I really can't expect others, with less open minds, to believe my words or anyone elses. Until you experience it for yourself, (and even after that you'll be telling yourself that this can't be.) you can't grasp the reality of it. I haven't heard any "Scotty, beam me up" yet. Nor have I seen any shape shifting. It's fantastic enough just to have them around.

When I post, I do so for the benifit of those that believe, and know. To compare behaviors and appearance, and activities with other's. I don't expect I will be believed by anyone who doesn't choose to. I realize the skeptics are all going to ask pointed questions. It seems that the answers presented to these questions are not satisfactory to them. I don't post details because, quite frankly, it is my opinion that nothing I present/submit would be good enough for doubters. This is the reason I don't pursue "scientific" evidence for others to review. I've seen too many knowers' "stories" getting ripped apart here and other places. And quite frankly, I don't have THAT kind of patience.

You that read this, don't have to believe me. I don't care. You don't know me, and it's wise to not take a stranger's word on everything. I wish everyone here could have at least one genuine experience with a Sasquatch. It will change your outlook on lots of things. And open your eyes to so many more possibilities in this world, and beyond.JMO-Knuck

[Sasfooty]

This is the reason I don't pursue "scientific" evidence for others to review. I've seen too many knowers' "stories" getting ripped apart here and other places. And quite frankly, I don't have THAT kind of patience.

JMO-Knuck

I'm glad you finally spoke up, Knuck. Don't worry about them "ripping apart" your "stories". They can scratch at them, but they can't rip the truth apart. They can get snarky & "exasperated" & ask all the dumb questions that they can think up, but they can't disprove the truth. Actually, they get kind of funny after awhile. I've learned to laugh at them.

Just ignore them & tell your "stories" for the ones that see them for what they are, & there are plenty of those people here. I've heard from dozens of them.

Maybe if we keep on keeping on, there will be others like us that will start speaking up.

[Guest]

Knuck, I hear you. I certainly do not have the time or patient to share wholesale either. Especially on an open forum where my early stage stuff has evidence that is fleeting. In my case vocals are so distant or footprints just dont carry through.. due to places where they choose to step. So know you & Sass are not the only ones. That is a fact.

Edited February 2, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest fenris]

Just ignore them & tell your "stories" for the ones that see them for what they are, & there are plenty of those people here. I've heard from dozens of them.

Maybe if we keep on keeping on, there will be others like us that will start speaking up.

The trouble is that in speaking up Knuck is a rarity and he poses something of a double edged sword for speaking up. Personally I read his stories with interest and take note. But there are actually two problems touched upon in this thread, and what I am about to say will possibly insult a few, but so be it.

Those who say yes to everything are a waste of time, because frankly if they truly say yes to everything they have no critical thinking skills. They run parallel to the scam artists out there, not by means of deceit, but by being so gullible it in fact makes little difference.

Then the opposite extreme, who shoot down EVERYTHING and have already made up their minds. SHow them a body and they will liken it to the alien autopsy crap. They pick things apart frankly because they have nothing better to do, and are ironically, little better than the deceitful and the gullible.

[Sasfooty]

The trouble is that in speaking up Knuck is a rarity and he poses something of a double edged sword for speaking up.

Well, maybe people like Knuck & me are about to get less rare.

I think we are getting tired of being quiet.

[southernyahoo]

Those who say yes to everything are a waste of time, because frankly if they truly say yes to everything they have no critical thinking skills. They run parallel to the scam artists out there, not by means of deceit, but by being so gullible it in fact makes little difference.

Technically, simply saying yes or no doesn't establish a fact or prove fiction , it's a belief and it doesn't matter what people believe. A fact is established with evidence. People have the right to be uninformed about facts which are so difficult to establish. Yes there is bogus information which will lead you to a dead-end, and there is also truth, that will "find you" time and time again.

[GuyInIndiana]

A specimen. That's the only thing science will accept. So I guess anyone who is not out there trying to either kill one or trap one, should just call it quits.

That assumes others out there "researching" care about bringing anything to 'science'. I don't.

I'm in it because I enjoy being as close to them as we can for now, to see what we can or can't learn from the experience.

Having science accept anything I'm doing, for now, is none of my concern.

What I personally experience out in the field, if repeated a few times, to me becomes fact. A lot of what I see on here and other bigfoot discussion forums, appears highly fictionalized.

[Guest fenris]

Technically, simply saying yes or no doesn't establish a fact or prove fiction , it's a belief and it doesn't matter what people believe. A fact is established with evidence. People have the right to be uninformed about facts which are so difficult to establish. Yes there is bogus information which will lead you to a dead-end, and there is also truth, that will "find you" time and time again.

with critical thinking yes, BUT.... not every little thing is bigfoot, it is the least likely candidate until you can rule out everything else or unless you're lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, I personally get bored more so with the debunkers, I won't even call them skeptics, because among them there's also the segment you could beat about the head with a squatchy arm and they still wouldn't believe. Folks like that are imho a complete waste of time in engaging, they cant see past the end of their own nose.

[xspider1]

...there's also the segment you could beat about the head with a squatchy arm and they still wouldn't believe.

That's funny fenris!

This topic has been very interesting. Perhaps we should make a list of only the things that must surely be true, if Bigfoot Exists, like: 'Bigfoot have big feet'. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to make a list of things that we know are not true about Bigfoot. E.g., ‘Bigfoots are from Mars.’ While that is not surely true, we don’t know that to be false. E.g., do some Bigfoot smoke cigarettes? I don’t see why that is impossible to believe:

It doesn't have to be printed to be ‘published’. Bigfoot evidence and the study of it is not likely to appear in very many Scientific Journals right now because, as you see, Bigfoot is a joke to the vast majority of the world. And, I bet that not many Scientists like to be laughed at all the time. The world is just too busy for most people to even think about it much. So, I really don’t blame Scientists too much for not sticking their neck out more although it would be nice if more people in general were interested in discovery.

[WV FOOTER]

Most people will laugh at you if asked if they believe in Bigfoot. I have never seen one but I truly believe they exist. If they don't exist, explain all of the sightings as well as the pictographs that have been discovered in caves or on rock walls. It just boils down to you either believe or you don't. Those folks here that have seen Bigfoot are very lucky IMO.

[southernyahoo]

with critical thinking yes, BUT.... not every little thing is bigfoot,

Eventually this would prove to be true, but bear with me. The collection of data which may seem irrelevant at the time could prove to be positive indicators later.If you only pay attention to obvious tracks or what you might deem credible witnesses then you will allways be a day later than the guy who has payed the extra attention to more "possible" indicators. Patterns emerge from this. You might refer to it as data mining, but there is a reason for it.