"squatchholm" Syndrome

[Guest]

What does "what we are" have to do with "what they are"?

I'm assuming, for purposes of an alternative to the null hypothesis, if all evidence to date is not attributable to hoaxing, misidentification, or hallucination, that they are not us.

The evidence that there is something "paranormal" going on is being ignored!

If you mean, by paranormal, that the bigfoot phenomenon has yet to be proven by science, that's correct. If you mean supernatural, science is incapable of proving the supernatural.

What specific evidence is being ignored?

There is no doubt that the derision of those who choose to invoke faith in the nonexistence of bigfoot impede scientific investigation into the bigfoot phenomenon. So do those who invoke faith to claim the existence of bigfoot. In fact, nothing pleases the scoftics more than to watch those true believers respond to their derision with their own brand of illogic.

[Guest thermalman]

How would you explain all the eye witness accounts? Illogical? Afterall, they were there and you weren't. Your comments are a suttle way of calling all the witnesses liars, which leaves your reasoning illogical.

Edited February 2, 2013 by thermalman

[georgerm]

One of the phenomenon I've noticed associated with Bigfoot is that the people who have had contact with them tend to become indifferent to proving they exist to other people .This also tends to happen by degrees with those who are experiencing the most being the most likely to side with the Forest Peoples desire not to be found or bothered . Skeptics may dissmiss this as lying or hoaxing but , I find it to be generally true and to take many forms which add to the general opacity of the field . Everything from not releasing certain photos or video , to not revealing hot spots , to refusing to collect evidence could be a case of what I like to call Squatchholm Syndrome . I consider myself a mild case in that I don't carry a camera because I tend to experience more activity when I don't ..

Thoughts? Examples?

Very interesting concept and I feel the same way to a point.

[Guest]

As I said above, sharing evidence is a lot like putting a "Kick Me" sign on your back.

The more I learned about them, and the less it jibed with mainstream squatch ideas,the more I wanted to talk about it but the less acceptable to others any discussion became. Not that it was less credible in a real sense, but in that others rejected it out of hand due to what they believed it suggested. Without futher ado. And it seemed like it became open season, like I gave the mean and hateful a license to be abusive and insulting.

You do want to share but you know it's not going to be what they want to hear or see. You know it just invites unpleasantness and conflict. It becomes self destructive.

[Sasfooty]

This rationale, of course, will not work if BF is just a dumb animal; you need to assume that they have enough intelligence to deny and deceive.

The habituated don't have to assume it very long, because they will soon see it for themselves.

Here's another plus, KC. You just keep hitting those home runs.

[LeafTalker]

I don't like that word, but for lack of a better term, I have become habituated to using it.

(I hope that conveys the right thing.... I'm terrible at picking icons... I think I have icon dyslexia -- but I thought that was hysterical, Sasfooty!!!!!)

Edited February 3, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Guest]

How would you explain all the eye witness accounts? Illogical? Afterall, they were there and you weren't. Your comments are a suttle way of calling all the witnesses liars, which leaves your reasoning illogical.

Within the context of the null hypothesis of "bigfoot does not exist," the body of eyewitness accounts would be explained by things such as hoaxing, misidentification, and hallucination. After all, eyewitness accounts can be notoriously unreliable. Within the context of the alternative hypothesis of "bigfoot exists," I assume most eyewitness accounts would be attributable to an encounter with a bigfoot.

I came nowhere near, not even subtly, to calling all eyewitnesses liars. Hoaxers are liars, but people misidentifying something or hallucinating are not lying as they have no intention to deceive. I've also said I believe the body of evidence to date, while not conclusive, warrants a significant scientific undertaking to attempt solve the bigfoot phenomenon.

I understand I was not present at anyone else's purported encounter, and I do not generally dismiss other's reports as fabrications, although I regard them all with healthy skepticism (not scofticism), including my own potential auditory encounter. I would never demand that anyone take my story as proof of bigfoot's existence, because, although I can think of only two possibilities to explain what I heard, I am myself unable to conclude it was a bigfoot and I have no physical evidence.

I will say when a supposed witness becomes defensive when questions are asked, my skeptimeter starts to get higher readings. Some degree of skepticism is reasonable, as is a desire to know more. After all, several big hoaxes have been pulled off within these fora in the years I've been here. And, one thing life has taught me, defensive people almost always have a reason to be defensive.

As I said above, sharing evidence is a lot like putting a "Kick Me" sign on your back.

The more I learned about them, and the less it jibed with mainstream squatch ideas,the more I wanted to talk about it but the less acceptable to others any discussion became. Not that it was less credible in a real sense, but in that others rejected it out of hand due to what they believed it suggested. Without futher ado. And it seemed like it became open season, like I gave the mean and hateful a license to be abusive and insulting.

Abuse and insults are not tolerated here.

You do want to share but you know it's not going to be what they want to hear or see. You know it just invites unpleasantness and conflict. It becomes self destructive.

If you have great evidence it will speak for itself. If you have weak evidence people will be right in dismissing it. Take the typical blobsquatch photo. A picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words. If it takes a thousand words to explain a photo, that photo is, at best, weak evidence. I've taken several photos of black bears in Yellowstone, but most turned out to be blob-bears, recognizeable as a bear only by me and my children because we were there at the time and could readily identify the critter. Such photos have no meaning to anyone but us, as anyone else would only see a small unrecognizeable black spot.

[Martin]

Apparently you don't have a very good conception of what habituators have going on.

We see them & their glowing eyes, we hear them, we smell them, we communicate with them, & we get pictures. (We don't always share our pictures, because we see what has happened to others like us who have shared.)

And eventually, the "paranormal" stuff starts being hard to ignore. Occams Razor has nothing to do with it.

That's exactly what I was getting at............

[norseman]

I flatly reject a paranormal explanation.........

[Guest thermalman]

Agreed.

^^@pter. "Within the context of the null hypothesis of "bigfoot does not exist," the body of eyewitness accounts would be explained by things such as hoaxing, misidentification, and hallucination. After all, eyewitness accounts can be notoriously unreliable. Within the context of the alternative hypothesis of "bigfoot exists," I assume most eyewitness accounts would be attributable to an encounter with a bigfoot.

I came nowhere near, not even subtly, to calling all eyewitnesses liars. Hoaxers are liars, but people misidentifying something or hallucinating are not lying as they have no intention to deceive. I've also said I believe the body of evidence to date, while not conclusive, warrants a significant scientific undertaking to attempt solve the bigfoot phenomenon."

Your assertion to dismiss ALL witnesses is illogical. For if there is even one truthful, legitimate witness, your skeptical assumption is dead in the water, and sinking fast.

Edited February 4, 2013 by thermalman

[JDL]

I'm also resistant to any paranormal attributes, though I will go with preternatural.

[Guest Primate]

JDL could you go into a bit more detail what those would be please ?? . Practically speaking where would one draw the line ??

[norseman]

JDL could you go into a bit more detail what those would be please ?? . Practically speaking where would one draw the line ??

A flesh and blood Ninja using deception, camo, terrain and an enemies weakness.

VS.

A shape shifting spirit that can travel through dimensions at will.

[Guest]

I'm also resistant to any paranormal attributes, though I will go with preternatural.

What's the difference? The words seem synonymous ro me.

*****

Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure. Paranormal phenomena are distinct from certain hypothetical entities, such as dark matter and dark energy, only insofar as paranormal phenomena are inconsistent with the world as already understood through empirical observation coupled with scientific methodology.

The preternatural is that which appears outside or beside the natural. In contrast to the supernatural, preternatural phenomena are presumed to have rational explanations that are unknown. The term is often used to distinguish from the divine (supernatural) while maintaining a distinction from what is known and understood.

*****

I get the sense that most people using "paranormal" mean supernatural, but per Wikipedia (above definitions) neither word means supernatural, but only that a phenomenon is beyond the current state of science to explain.

Thus, anyone invoking the idea that the bigfoot phenomenon is paranormal or preternatural should be suggesting ways for science to document and explain the phenomenon, rather than complaining that the scientific method is flawed — unless they truly believe the phenomenon to be supernatural, which places it outside the realm of science.

Your assertion to dismiss ALL witnesses is illogical. For if there is even one truthful, legitimate witness, your skeptical assumption is dead in the water, and sinking fast.

You only quoted half of my post. You omitted the following:

"I understand I was not present at anyone else's purported encounter, and I do not generally dismiss other's reports as fabrications, although I regard them all with healthy skepticism (not scofticism), including my own potential auditory encounter. I would never demand that anyone take my story as proof of bigfoot's existence, because, although I can think of only two possibilities to explain what I heard, I am myself unable to conclude it was a bigfoot and I have no physical evidence.

"I will say when a supposed witness becomes defensive when questions are asked, my skeptimeter starts to get higher readings. Some degree of skepticism is reasonable, as is a desire to know more. After all, several big hoaxes have been pulled off within these fora in the years I've been here. And, one thing life has taught me, defensive people almost always have a reason to be defensive."

Thus, I have never claimed to have "dismiss[ed] ALL witnesses" as you falsely allege. I've also said I consider the large body of spoor, film, and anecdotal evidence sufficient to warrant significant effort to be expended in scientific investigations of the bigfoot phenomenon.

So, I ask you why are you misrepresenting my position and what reason do you have to be defensive?

[Guest]

I don't think they are paranormal--except sure as heck not in the normal category, that is for sure.

It just gets weirder and weirder. It is hard to explain. You don't know how they do what they do. You can't explain it to others, you can't explain it to yourself. So paranormal enters the room for some.

I just don't know. The evidence that goes with this: they seem like they are transparent, like you can see through them. WTF? They do that mindspeak to some people--not to me--but I am sure it does happen--reported too often to be ignored. The tracks ending abruptly. Where'd they go?? The fact that we can't locate them. The fact that they photograph all blurry and foggy looking. They can follow you for long distances. No bodies or bones we can lay our hands on.

. They have to be physical if for no other reason than the fact that everything else is, so they must be too, plus they throw shadows. They poop. They stink.

The Native AMericans --some--said they are spirit or half spirit half physical. I can see why. IF they are not sure, with their centuries of interaction and observation, there is sure something weird about bigfoot.