Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[norseman]

 

This used to be a skeptic vs believer thread.....

 

There should be a thread on how people become skeptics. I don't know about other skeptics, but I used to be a firm believer. In fact, I was just emailing back and forth with an xmember here and we were discussing just that and here is the summary of how I went from believer to skeptic.

 

"Wow, that is interesting about the mermaids. It is the same formula. It seems people want to believe. That has a lot to do with how I started becoming a skeptic. Back in the day, I was completely sold. I had read everything, had a recorded from TV version on the PGF. Belonged to some newsgroups that came by mail (still have this stuff in storage), was corresponding with Green and Krantz. Met up with a local investigator named Thomas Steenburg (he was in Calgary then), and on and on. When I was in university (studying Physical Anthropology), we even had an older prof (no longer teaching but still kept his office) named Vladimir Markotic who I met with a few times to discuss BF, he even gave me a signed copy of his book. Like I say, I was 99% convinced. Looking back, that mermaid formula likely applied to me. But it was the Internet that changed it for me. I was on the early forums, more like a newsgroup back then, heck, maybe it was even the earliest incarnation of the BFF. Anyway, once I was on there and started to get a sense who the people into BF were (aside from the real players putting out books and appearing on TV shows), and more importantly, where they were geographically .

 

I started to see people claiming to have set up research groups in places like Kansas, Texas, New York, Ohio....and all over the eastern states. These guys were all serious and putting up the same type of claims that we were seeing in the PNW and Alaska. That really made me sit up and second guess my own thinking. I was able to accept BF in the PNW or Alaska (talking NA here) but no way in the east. I even had a hard time with Steenburg's claim for the eastern side of the Rockies, though I suppose, because he was an intelligent well spoken dude, I was able to come around to it. Plus, one of the highlighted sightings he investigated (referred to as the Crandel Lake sighting) from Waterton Park was really quit interesting, given the number of people involved. But there you go, I bit on that one too. But overall, the fact that people in the areas I refused to accept BF could be were claiming serious BF activity, well, that made me stand back and second guess my own thinking. Maybe I was just wanting to believe in BF, and I had formed this ideal scenario in my mind that let me go on believing in such a thing.

 

But that, and life, cooled my interest for a few years. The next thing that affected my BF stance was maybe even more of a BF downer haha. I worked in the mountains for a few seasons at a place called Lake O'Hara Lodge (awesome spot, best hiking anywhere). I became good friends with a wildlife biologist staging out of the same staff accommodations I was in. He studied bears all summer and wolves all winter. We discussed BF a lot, I tried to convince him, using all the standard BF believer arguments, but he would not budge, in fact, he gave me a large dose of the reality behind such a thing being possible or not. That really had an effect, though it took me a while to let it sink in. 

 

So I ended up moving on from BF, and anthropology, and into a new degree and new career path, which had no relation to primates and such. BF went to the back-burner, but not quite into the trash just yet. In fact, for quite a while. I floated in and out of the BF world. Whenever I saw a new book, or something on TV, I would check it out. I was the go to guy among friends and family for anything BF haha, and I knew all the classic stories, which was great for freaking out the wife on camping trips. But I had really lost any passion for most things BF.

 

Fast forward to a few years ago. For some reason I had wondered what Steenburg was up to, whether he was still in the game or not. So I hit the Google search and started reading up on his status, watched some YouTube video on presentations, and somewhere in all that ended up on the BFF. I had a bit of a resurgence. I delved in to find out if there was anything new, any new evidence in the last ten years. Nothing! But still, I was believing again, I even got pissed at Kit when I read his posts...'who does this guy think he is?' But as I read Kit's posts, and got past my bias, I started to see what he was saying made sense. And he was backing things up, laying it out there so people could follow along. Most didn't, they just piled on, I did, it made me think. And it wasn't just Kit, it was other skeptics too. And it was the believers who really turned my off BF. Their arguments seemed so hollow, so devoid of substance. And slowly I turned from mostly believer to skeptic. If someone took the time to go through my posts on the BFF they could see the transition taking place. "

 

 

It is what it is. You seem like more of a bystander that has been swayed by argument, than anything else, yes?

 

From this point of view? I have no doubt your a skeptic. Look, in the overall scheme of things skeptics and science have Bigfootdom bent over a barrel........ we have very small victories like Bill Munns on our side. But over all.........it's not even comparable. So from a bystander standpoint it's like rooting for the New York Yankees versus the Omaha Jackrabbits. Rooting for the Yankees is a safe bet..........it's also the popular bet as well.

 

But unfortunately for some of us.............we are not just bystanders. We have experienced something that is beyond the normal human experience. Many peoples walks start there............unlike you. Minding their own business, having no opinion on the issue and suddenly? They have something happen to them that changes their lives forever.

 

I wasn't impressed with Kit's argument, although I thought he was a swell guy personally.

 

But I unlike many many many Bigfoot "researchers" take Science very seriously. And Science has told us for over a century of what they need from us to prove the existence of a new species. As a community? We have failed miserably on this front...........the most important front. Instead we insist Science changes it's rules........just for us...........and accepts our word for it that their is a undiscovered species out there.

 

My mission in life is to first of all, convince the Bigfoot community that they are mistaken and not being realistic in the matter of proof. And for two help that community to gear up to prove the existence of Bigfoot to skeptics and science. 

 

That's not an easy job. And like you I'm not 100 percent sure they exist either. But I have seen enough to suspect they are out there, and realistic enough to know what needs to be done to prove they exist.

 

And remember this............just because Sally is seeing one on her postage stamp lot in New Jersey............DOES NOT MEAN that they don't exist in some remote valley in British Columbia. It doesn't negate that hunter or loggers sighting...........it only means that humans by nature are impressionable. And if a BC hunter is seeing one in the wild..........then what is that out my back window at two o clock in the morning in anywhere, USA?

[Guest]

 

It is what it is. You seem like more of a bystander that has been swayed by argument, than anything else, yes?

 

From this point of view? I have no doubt your a skeptic. Look, in the overall scheme of things skeptics and science have Bigfootdom bent over a barrel........ we have very small victories like Bill Munns on our side. But over all.........it's not even comparable. So from a bystander standpoint it's like rooting for the New York Yankees versus the Omaha Jackrabbits. Rooting for the Yankees is a safe bet..........it's also the popular bet as well.

 

But unfortunately for some of us.............we are not just bystanders. We have experienced something that is beyond the normal human experience. Many peoples walks start there............unlike you. Minding their own business, having no opinion on the issue and suddenly? They have something happen to them that changes their lives forever.

 

I wasn't impressed with Kit's argument, although I thought he was a swell guy personally.

 

But I unlike many many many Bigfoot "researchers" take Science very seriously. And Science has told us for over a century of what they need from us to prove the existence of a new species. As a community? We have failed miserably on this front...........the most important front. Instead we insist Science changes it's rules........just for us...........and accepts our word for it that their is a undiscovered species out there.

 

My mission in life is to first of all, convince the Bigfoot community that they are mistaken and not being realistic in the matter of proof. And for two help that community to gear up to prove the existence of Bigfoot to skeptics and science. 

 

That's not an easy job. And like you I'm not 100 percent sure they exist either. But I have seen enough to suspect they are out there, and realistic enough to know what needs to be done to prove they exist.

 

And remember this............just because Sally is seeing one on her postage stamp lot in New Jersey............DOES NOT MEAN that they don't exist in some remote valley in British Columbia. It doesn't negate that hunter or loggers sighting...........it only means that humans by nature are impressionable. And if a BC hunter is seeing one in the wild..........then what is that out my back window at two o clock in the morning in anywhere, USA?

 

 

Well said. Like I say, I live on Vancouver Island now, loads of sightings out here...in fact, I have rented a place in Strathcona Park for the next three months and I did so to spend the entire summer in the back country (I'm a technomad so I just need decent internet to work). I'm here for the photography/video/timelapse opportunities, but I would love nothing better than to spot the big hairy while I'm up here on the mountain. I'm not totally oblivious to the arguments put forward by believers, in fact, I am intimately familiar with most arguments for the existence of BF. But as much as I'd like to see something, I'm pretty sure I won't. But rest assured, if I do, I will have a camera in my hand, and I know how to use it. Heck maybe I'll analyse my timelapses a little closer.  

 

Peace

Edited June 1, 2013 by summitwalker

[norseman]

It is what it is. You seem like more of a bystander that has been swayed by argument, than anything else, yes?

From this point of view? I have no doubt your a skeptic. Look, in the overall scheme of things skeptics and science have Bigfootdom bent over a barrel........ we have very small victories like Bill Munns on our side. But over all.........it's not even comparable. So from a bystander standpoint it's like rooting for the New York Yankees versus the Omaha Jackrabbits. Rooting for the Yankees is a safe bet..........it's also the popular bet as well.

But unfortunately for some of us.............we are not just bystanders. We have experienced something that is beyond the normal human experience. Many peoples walks start there............unlike you. Minding their own business, having no opinion on the issue and suddenly? They have something happen to them that changes their lives forever.

I wasn't impressed with Kit's argument, although I thought he was a swell guy personally.

But I unlike many many many Bigfoot "researchers" take Science very seriously. And Science has told us for over a century of what they need from us to prove the existence of a new species. As a community? We have failed miserably on this front...........the most important front. Instead we insist Science changes it's rules........just for us...........and accepts our word for it that their is a undiscovered species out there.

My mission in life is to first of all, convince the Bigfoot community that they are mistaken and not being realistic in the matter of proof. And for two help that community to gear up to prove the existence of Bigfoot to skeptics and science.

That's not an easy job. And like you I'm not 100 percent sure they exist either. But I have seen enough to suspect they are out there, and realistic enough to know what needs to be done to prove they exist.

And remember this............just because Sally is seeing one on her postage stamp lot in New Jersey............DOES NOT MEAN that they don't exist in some remote valley in British Columbia. It doesn't negate that hunter or loggers sighting...........it only means that humans by nature are impressionable. And if a BC hunter is seeing one in the wild..........then what is that out my back window at two o clock in the morning in anywhere, USA?

Well said. Like I say, I live on Vancouver Island now, loads of sightings out here...in fact, I have rented a place in Strathcona Park for the next three months and I did so to spend the entire summer in the back country (I'm a technomad so I just need decent internet to work). I'm here for the photography/video/timelapse opportunities, but I would love nothing better than to spot the big hairy while I'm up here on the mountain. I'm not totally oblivious to the arguments put forward by believers, in fact, I am intimately familiar with most arguments for the existence of BF. But as much as I'd like to see something, I'm pretty sure I won't. But rest assured, if I do, I will have a camera in my hand, and I know how to use it. Heck maybe I'll analyse my timelapses a little closer.

Peace

yes but if you find yourself fortunate enough to see one and get some pictures? I think your going to understand what iam talking about very quickly.

The skeptics will eat you and your photos...... even if you were once a skeptic yourself.

[Guest]

Norseman,

 

You are my favorite pro-Bigfoot poster. I enjoy your posts and respect you as a person. So, I am concerned --- please do not make proving Bigfoot your life's mission. Disappointment, if not madness, will be your lot. All due respect to you intended. 

[Guest]

 

 

 

Is that clear enough for you? Or do you want me to get out my red pen?

 

But this Todd Standing guy.........he is a hoaxer right? Right? How in the heck should I know? Do you see how this circular argument goes on and on and on and on.............?????????????

 

Skeptics ask for a clear picture of Squatch that isn't like yanno 40 freakin years old. Well ok..........this very clear, detailed photo is from 2 years ago. It's not a tree stump........I can see that. CHECK. It's not a Bear. CHECK. It's not a owl or a badger or a moose butt. CHECK.CHECK.CHECK.

 

But is it a dude in a suit? If your a skeptic that doesn't believe that a Sasquatch could be a real species? IT'S ALWAYS GONNA BE A DUDE IN A SUIT.

 

Just stick with asking for a body...........no harm, no foul there. But asking for a better picture is just ad nauseum for me to hear repeatedly.......

 

 

Seems there's a Sasquatch infestation whenever this guy goes into the woods.  Poor guy can't swing a dead cat by its tail without hitting a Sasquatch.  All you researchers should find out what aftershave he's using.  But in all seriousness, Todd Standing should get together with Munns and fabricate an entire body for the next Sylvanic expedition.  After all, Sasquatches are 9ft tall and people will start questioning why all his 1080P HD images are from the neck up.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

After a year in Bigfootery, I've come to the conclusion that there's almost no good evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. I often see people here complain about how scientists won't look at the evidence. The truth is, there's really nothing compelling in Bigfootery to look at. Bigfoot seems to be more of a belief system than anything nowadays. The greatest evidence to date (the PGF) is now 45 years old. I'm still a proponent by the way, but I acknowledge the lack of compelling evidence for Bigfoot and the reality behind the online community.

Edited June 2, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest DWA]

When scientists disagree with you, I go with them.

 

When scientists agree with you, but back it up with no good logical reasons to think that...reread sentence 1.

[Cotter]

@OS, a year of on-line 'research' for you to determine there is not much compelling evidence put on the internet?  Yikes! 

 

Question - in that year, how much field work have you put in?  Y'know, boots on the ground?

 

Any investigations you've participated in?

 

It's kind of like having a bad day fishing on a lake and declaring there are no fish in the lake....

[Guest DWA]

Cotter:  your last sentence is about the best summary of the bigfoot-skeptic take I've read.

 

A whole year too.  Wow.  See, this is kind of the problem.  99% of this field is trash, and that's the total focus of the skeptics.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I'm not a skeptic by the way. I still believe in the existence of Sasquatch, but I don't think the types of evidence that's currently available is very good from a scientific point of view (e.g. footprints, sightings, audio, video, photos ect). That's all.

Edited June 3, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Cotter]

Well sure, I'd agree, with evidence that is publicly available and confirmable via the internet, there is very little scientific value in it.  Other than perhaps, as DWA has mentioned countless times, there is a certain level of evidence presented, across a wide population that has striking similarities, to warrant further, serious, ACTUAL scientific scrutiny of the phenom.

 

I asked about the boots on the ground b/c evidence experienced first hand is magnitudes more valuable to a researcher than is second hand accounts, or intrepretations of possible evidence in the field that is passed along.

[Guest]

After a year in Bigfootery, I've come to the conclusion that there's almost no good evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. I often see people here complain about how scientists won't look at the evidence. The truth is, there's really nothing compelling in Bigfootery to look at. Bigfoot seems to be more of a belief system than anything nowadays. The greatest evidence to date (the PGF) is now 45 years old. I'm still a proponent by the way, but I acknowledge the lack of compelling evidence for Bigfoot and the reality behind the online community.

 

Well said. I came to the forums a believer, and in about a year I had turned. Mainly for the reason you state above, lack of evidence. I see you're still a believer, I respect that, we all have to come to our own conclusions. I also agree that the PGF is going on 50 years old, and still nothing else like it.

Edited June 6, 2013 by summitwalker

[Guest]

@OS, a year of on-line 'research' for you to determine there is not much compelling evidence put on the internet?  Yikes! 

 

Question - in that year, how much field work have you put in?  Y'know, boots on the ground?

 

Any investigations you've participated in?

 

It's kind of like having a bad day fishing on a lake and declaring there are no fish in the lake....

 

Boots on the ground is a nice idea, but, assuming BF is real, where would you put these boots? 

 

In all my years looking into the BF thing, I can't say I did a lot of 'in the field' looking for BF. I did/do however spend a lot of time in the back country for a whole list of other reasons/activities. I may not be out there specifically looking for BF, I am/was hiking, scrambling, fishing, camping, ATVing, working, hunting with a camera, and on and on, but often with BF on the back of my mind. Even today as a skeptic I have BF on the brain when I'm out there, thought about him last night as I was trying to be a landscape photographer. There are tons of people out there doing the same, stemming from the same passion to be in the bush, but we don't see much BF evidence coming in, regardless of the total coverage we have of the NA back country.

 

Peace

Edited June 6, 2013 by summitwalker

[BobbyO]

@OS, a year of on-line 'research' for you to determine there is not much compelling evidence put on the internet? Yikes!

Question - in that year, how much field work have you put in? Y'know, boots on the ground?

Any investigations you've participated in?

It's kind of like having a bad day fishing on a lake and declaring there are no fish in the lake....

Boots on the ground is a nice idea, but, assuming BF is real, where would you put these boots?

In all my years looking into the BF thing, I can't say I did a lot of 'in the field' looking for sh, but we don't see much BF evidence coming in, regardless of the total coverage we have of the NA back country.

Peace

But this is Cotter's whole point.

You're spending more time looking at the " BF thing " but admittedly little time actually in the woods looking for your quarry.

This is the problem with the online community, too many people prefer to look at the people in the community for some strange reason than get out to look for the animal in the forest.

Make no mistake though, I'm not saying you shouldn't lose interest in the subject, I couldn't give two hoots what you do, but I just can't see how people can lose interest in something when they don't actually really look into that something, but just look into the circus that surrounds that something instead.

Phew, that line could possibly be another sig line like I have already..

Edited June 6, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest DWA]

^^^plussed big time.