Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest]

There are lots of reasons folks do not share their research with Universities or on forums.

Unless what these folks are keeping to themselves are pieces of bigfoots then what they might have to share would not advance the case for bigfoot beyond where we are today.

To you, as a scientist, eyewitness reports are anecdotal. To those who have witnessed BF it is proof. To those of us who have never personally witnessed BF but lean towards belief, they are evidence in the affirmative.

That's nice, but you're mixing your messages. I have been responding to your assertions that we skeptics keep ridiculing alleged witnesses. I don't see that happening. I see skeptics honestly recognizing the full spectrum of explanations for stories that cannot be independently verified, and just asking questions at that. Where in this thread have "the skeptics" descended upon a bigfoot witness's story and exclaimed in one voice: "That lady was on drugs, and that's why she saw a bigfoot"? Do we really have here at the BFF multiple skeptics who troll the "Sightings" area just to harass people who come forward to share their stories? I certainly don't do that.

So what I'm asking you to recognize is that it's possible, indeed responsible, to be highly skeptical of anecdotal claims. But you can be skeptical of anecdotal claims in general without being disrespectful to any one person who claims to have an encounter. I've had several in-depth discussions with people who claim eyewitness encounters with bigfoots. I find their stories fascinating. But in the end, all I can say is "I don't know what you experienced." That's not disrespectful. I would instead suggest that demands that people accept anecdotal stories are disrespectful to the people hearing the story.

If "bigfoot" was just footprints and the PGF I probably wouldn't still be interested after all these years. It is, in fact, the eyewitness accounts that keep me interested, so the repeated claims of them being "dismissed" by skeptics - at least by this one - are well off the mark.

Oh, and by the way - I've seen a few comments in this thread suggesting that skeptics don't do field work and don't go looking for evidence of bigfoot. Both suggestions are dead wrong.

[Guest]

I have been responding to your assertions that we skeptics keep ridiculing alleged witnesses. I don't see that happening.

Really? You were witness to my recent participation on the JREF forum. I wasn't ridiculed?

The problem with "skeptics" is that most who hide behind the banner aren't skeptical. They're obnoxious and belittling, and most of those who aren't are condescending. I have personal experience with that. I find that annoying since I describe myself as skeptical. I'm a true skeptic in that I allow new information to color my opinions. The overwhelming number of "skeptics" have minds that are locked tight and fused solid. In my opinion.

[Guest thermalman]

Agreed. +1 Bip. I will add arrogant to the adjectives.

Edited September 11, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

Sorry if I wasn't clear - I was referring to behavior of skeptics here at the BFF - and more specifically in this thread. Clearly, if you go to the JREF and claim that you've seen bigfoots there are people there who will remove the kid gloves before addressing your claim.

As for obnoxious, belittling, condescending - and arrogant! - yes, some skeptics are those things. That doesn't mean that they're not appropriately skeptical. I've encountered bigfoot proponents who are all of those things. Some skeptics are nice people, some are jerks.

[Guest]

Unless what these folks are keeping to themselves are pieces of bigfoots then what they might have to share would not advance the case for bigfoot beyond where we are today.

That's nice, but you're mixing your messages. I have been responding to your assertions that we skeptics keep ridiculing alleged witnesses. I don't see that happening. I see skeptics honestly recognizing the full spectrum of explanations for stories that cannot be independently verified, and just asking questions at that. Where in this thread have "the skeptics" descended upon a bigfoot witness's story and exclaimed in one voice: "That lady was on drugs, and that's why she saw a bigfoot"? Do we really have here at the BFF multiple skeptics who troll the "Sightings" area just to harass people who come forward to share their stories? I certainly don't do that.

So what I'm asking you to recognize is that it's possible, indeed responsible, to be highly skeptical of anecdotal claims. But you can be skeptical of anecdotal claims in general without being disrespectful to any one person who claims to have an encounter. I've had several in-depth discussions with people who claim eyewitness encounters with bigfoots. I find their stories fascinating. But in the end, all I can say is "I don't know what you experienced." That's not disrespectful. I would instead suggest that demands that people accept anecdotal stories are disrespectful to the people hearing the story.

If "bigfoot" was just footprints and the PGF I probably wouldn't still be interested after all these years. It is, in fact, the eyewitness accounts that keep me interested, so the repeated claims of them being "dismissed" by skeptics - at least by this one - are well off the mark.

Oh, and by the way - I've seen a few comments in this thread suggesting that skeptics don't do field work and don't go looking for evidence of bigfoot. Both suggestions are dead wrong.

That's fine and dandy, but didn't you peg the likelihood of bigfoot existing at virtually zero? So your position is that all witnesses are mistaken or lying, right? It's the phenomenon that intrigues you, not the possibility there might be 1 reliable witness. You listen to their stories and categorize them into the 2 groups, lying or mistaken. You say to yourself "I don't know what you saw, but it sure as hell wasn't bigfoot". That's the difference.

Instead of thousands of sightings strengthening the case for bigfoot, you see just the opposite. All those sightings without a body has convinced you that there is no bigfoot. Science can't accept the existence of bigfoot without proof. And it shouldn't. But it also can't claim bigfoot does not exist until a body is found. There is no default position in science. That's pseudo-skepticism.

ps. Just wondering, what % of species has been classified & catalogued?

[Guest]

Clearly, if you go to the JREF and claim that you've seen bigfoots there are people there who will remove the kid gloves before addressing your claim.

So you're saying that when professed skeptics gather in sufficient numbers, it's to be expected that they'd get obnoxious and demeaning? "Kid gloves" is a skeptic code word for arrogantly dismissive of those with experiences outside their paradigm? Good to know.

People of all kinds will be obnoxious because they're people. However, the level of smug dickishness I encountered on JREF exceeds anything I've experienced elsewhere. Perhaps I've been hanging with the right people, though.

[Guest]

That's fine and dandy, but didn't you peg the likelihood of bigfoot existing at virtually zero?

Yes I did. I am convinced that explanations other than "real bigfoots" explain every claimed encounter and every scrap of purported evidence. I could, however, be wrong, and many people here know that I am wrong. Their stories intrigue me, as does the possibility that I could be wrong. If I am wrong, that will inevitably be proven.

So you're saying that when professed skeptics gather in sufficient numbers, it's to be expected that they'd get obnoxious and demeaning?

No, I'm saying that when people gather in sufficient numbers some number among them will be obnoxious and demeaning. There are people here at the BFF with those qualities as well.

[Cotter]

I am convinced that explanations other than "real bigfoots" explain every claimed encounter and every scrap of purported evidence.

But without vetting each encounter, how can you be convinced? Would you only be guessing?

And if you are only guessing, doesn't that automatically provide a % error in the probability? A large one?

[Guest]

Whether or not bigfoot exists is a binary conclusion -- the reality is, it either exists or it does not, there cannot be an in-between. For those of you who have had a sighting and KNOW bigfoot exists, that colors your interpretation of the evidence, and rightfully so -- if bigfoot exists, clearly SOME sightings are for real. On the flip side, some skeptics have evaluated the evidence and concluded that bigfoot does NOT exist. That conclusion colors their interpretation of the evidence -- if the evidence says bigfoot does not exist, then there MUST be alternative explanations for what people are seeing in the woods.

I don't think there's a difference in logic here, I think it's a difference in experience.

Edited September 11, 2012 by PJam

[salubrious]

Which challenge was that?

RayG

Simple. Skeptical?? Then go ahead, disprove the evidence. I like BFSleuth's concept of data points- and there are plenty of them. Use the methods that the believers/knowers use to find evidence or encounters. Once had, find alternate explanations for their existence.

For example, I accidentally was involved with a means of getting BF attention- I was at a fireworks display at a friend's cabin in Wisconsin. I stayed there that night. It was early July and we had the window open in the guest cabin. At about 12:30 AM, there was a rock clacking sound outside. It went on for about 5 minutes. In order to clack rocks, you need hands, so it could only be humans or BF. If human, why would a human hike into such a remote spot to do something like that? We tried clacking rocks from various distances and it turned out that the sound was coming from the yard itself, which is really a brushy hill, dropping off into dense wooded hilly forest. We can use the 'human did it don't know why' explanation for that event, but there are other events and evidence (tracks 17" long) that are making the human explanation really unlikely.

Now that was not that hard to find these data points and anyone can do it. They just have to do the things that the data points have already shown to be effective.

But skeptics don't do that. As far as I can tell, they don't put any effort into such things at all, even though they may be in the forest a lot. Conclusion: if you are unwilling to find the evidence and develop plausible alternative explanations, your skepticism is based on belief rather than anything truthful. Its made up. So in that last sentence is the challenge. I have now issued it three times; the first two times the skeptics avoided the issue altogether.

[Guest]

But skeptics don't do that. As far as I can tell, they don't put any effort into such things at all, even though they may be in the forest a lot. Conclusion: if you are unwilling to find the evidence and develop plausible alternative explanations, your skepticism is based on belief rather than anything truthful. Its made up.

Yep.

[Guest]

For example, I accidentally was involved with a means of getting BF attention- I was at a fireworks display at a friend's cabin in Wisconsin. I stayed there that night. It was early July and we had the window open in the guest cabin. At about 12:30 AM, there was a rock clacking sound outside. It went on for about 5 minutes. In order to clack rocks, you need hands, so it could only be humans or BF. If human, why would a human hike into such a remote spot to do something like that? We tried clacking rocks from various distances and it turned out that the sound was coming from the yard itself, which is really a brushy hill, dropping off into dense wooded hilly forest. We can use the 'human did it don't know why' explanation for that event, but there are other events and evidence (tracks 17" long) that are making the human explanation really unlikely.

Well, for one thing, your story has your own assumptions built in. I personally would deem it much more likely a human would hike to a remote spot to either screw around, or just do something completely unrelated to you that you interpret as bigfoot, than it being an actual bigfoot. How can we evaluate which one of us is right or wrong? I don't think we can, so this assumption on both sides is worthless, and we have to conclude "don't know."

Which is equally important -- I think many skeptics on here would say, "I don't know what caused those tracks." Should eliminating all known explanation automatically lead to a conclusion of bigfoot? Why? If I don't know how my TV remote works, I don't automatically conclude it's magic. I don't automatically conclude anything. I conclude that I don't know how it works, and within that "don't know" category is a whole set of possible explanations.

So I don't know what caused those rocks to clack outside your friend's cabin. It could be a bigfoot; it could be a person; it could be a giant bird picking up rocks and dropping them on other rocks; it could be that an animal has learned to imitate the sound of clacking rocks. But unless you have something other than using the process of elimination on just "the stuff we can think of off the top of our heads" to conclude bigfoot, I think "I don't know" is a very plausible and responsible answer.

[kbhunter]

In response to HRP's point regading this is BFF 2.0 and not BFF 1.0, he is exactly correct!! I hope it never gets to the point the majority are skeptics and folks are afraid to come on here and get "dissed". I hope we all RESPECT each other's opinions!

There has been a huge change for the better BFS! Thanks to efforts by HRP and others! Many conversations were had regarding the OLD BF 1.0 and what made it work and not work. Also, I am in agreement 100% that Saskeptic has provided a valuable perspective from the point of a skeptical observer.

KB

So you're saying that when professed skeptics gather in sufficient numbers, it's to be expected that they'd get obnoxious and demeaning? "Kid gloves" is a skeptic code word for arrogantly dismissive of those with experiences outside their paradigm? Good to know.

People of all kinds will be obnoxious because they're people. However, the level of smug dickishness I encountered on JREF exceeds anything I've experienced elsewhere. Perhaps I've been hanging with the right people, though.

Good to see ya around Bipto!!

KB

Edited September 11, 2012 by kbhunter

[Guest thermalman]

^^^^ Agreed.

[Guest]

Simple. Skeptical?? Then go ahead, disprove the evidence. I like BFSleuth's concept of data points- and there are plenty of them. Use the methods that the believers/knowers use to find evidence or encounters. Once had, find alternate explanations for their existence.

So let me see if I understand this correctly, something strange happens; the default explanation will be BF did it. Eventhough you didn't see a BF, the culprit will remain a BF until a skeptic can prove otherwise. Sort of like the famous phrase - "innocent until proven guilty", but in this case, "Sasquatch, Until A Skeptic Can Prove That It Wasn't A Sasquatch".