At Tipping Point Of Bf Acceptance Culturally?

[WSA]

Got it. Nothing so annoying as proof that won't show up on schedule, is there? I suppose it does take a rather long attention span otherwise, no?

[Guest]

dmaker is making good points regarding "belief".  One of the reasons I joined this particular forum was that it seemed to have a diverse membership of people who interested in dialogue about the topic of Bigfoot. I want to believe, but in the absence of a personal experience, or proof, I'm still skeptical.  I firmly plant myself on the slippery slope of oscillating between belief and skepticism depending on the latest news/stories/discoveries.  True believers should not feel reticent about their belief - I'm the chicken - the person who won't commit either way.  I want to believe the Rams are going to win the Super Bowl this year - but until that happens - it is only belief and I'm fine with that.  Go Rams!

[dmaker]

 

Got it. Nothing so annoying as proof that won't show up on schedule, is there? I suppose it does take a rather long attention span otherwise, no?

 

Almost as annoying as proof that will never show up at all, or people that stubbornly refuse to believe in Bigfoot without proof? How long is that schedule exactly there WSA? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? In the meantime, why are we completely incapable of gathering any conclusive, tangible evidence? Why is there no fossil record? We have fossil record for bears in North America. Even if the BF to Bear ratio is 1:100, there should still be some fossil record of that large mammal in North America.

[Guest]

WSA, dmaker- I truely understand your station and stance, we cannot go forward without proof, however compelling the evidence is. So what about the eye-witnesses? Do they "need" to prove anything? I don't think so. And I even though some need validation it is reaaly isn't nessessary. Let me just say it has been a 53 year quest for myself and my imediate family sence our experiences in N. Ca. Proof would be nice but I have found peice in just the experiences and will enjoy validation when it comes.  

[WSA]

Nothing so amusing to me as someone perpetually asking the wrong questions dmaker, but expecting correct answer. It is some kind of unavoidable self-indulgence for most humans to put the natural world on the timetable of our feeble lifespans. In my experience, the two rarely coincide.

[LeafTalker]

Dmaker, you're cute when you're mad. Seriously, you're soooo smart, and I can hear the genuine passion and frustration in you. I wish there were some way to address some of your concerns -- because your discomfort feels very genuine to me, and nobody should have to suffer that much discomfort for such an extended period of time -- especially not when, like you, they work so hard to stay on track and express themselves as well as they can (which in your case is very, very well) -- and all without attacking anyone personally.

 

I feel for you, buddy. And I can't believe I'm the only one on my side of the "fence"who does. The only problem is, you're asking many, many people to subvert the testimony of their own eyes, ears, and noses to please you -- and that's the one thing nobody can do for you, no matter how much they love you. (And they do love you. Well, I do, anyway!) 

 

What could we do, short of somehow throwing the reins of our own lives over to you, that would make it easier for you to be here?  

 

Edited to add: I missed all the posts that have been added since your first response to WSA about the Bindernagel article. Amazing, what people are saying to you. Do you see how seriously they take you, and how much they really would like to make things easier for you, and all of us! and how you brought out those thoughts and feelings? Your concerns are heard and valued. There's just no way to address them, beyond what people here have just said. 

Edited May 7, 2013 by LeafTalker

[dmaker]

Eye witnesses do not need to prove anything. Most of them have nothing they can prove, as in they are flat out lying and they know it. Others that saw something, don't know what it is but convince themselves it is BF, well some of those do develop an urge to prove. Maybe this is because no one believes them, or maybe just their own curiosity that drives them. I don't know. I applaud those that want to try to explain better what they saw. There are folks like that on this board. Our own Nathan Footer spends a fair bit of his time earnestly trying to substantiate what he saw. He seems like a nice kid, I like him, we chat once in awhile in the BFF chat room. Do I believe he saw what he claims? Not for a second. Do I think he is lying? Not for a second. While I applaud the efforts of those that are pursuing this phenomenon as a result of their "experience", I do also know that it will never amount to anything close to proof. It never does. Any attempt to come up with conclusive proof of BF always comes up empty handed, more often with a ridiculous embarassing spin to it, a la the Ketchum study, Erickson, etc. But for some ( if not most) I think the search is the thing that engages them, not the actual biological question. For some maybe it fills a niche in their life that was otherwise empty. This is now their "research" and they are now "researchers", and wow, didn't even have to attend a college or university! For others I think it's the mystery. Anything that can be made to sound remotely plausible becomes gospel truth. That's what feeds the mystery. I think alot of folks are in this area. They like to be scared by BF; they enjoy the tales, not the science. Science makes for a crappy villain in a campfire boogeyman story. So they ignore the science and the facts and embrace what engages them--the Bigfoot construct. They don't really care if BF is real or not, it's fun. It helps if someone can throw something out there that looks and feels sciency, but it's not necessary. But it certainly helps when the boogeyman has just a hint of plausiblity around it.

 

Nothing so amusing to me as someone perpetually asking the wrong questions dmaker, but expecting correct answer. It is some kind of unavoidable self-indulgence for most humans to put the natural world on the timetable of our feeble lifespans. In my experience, the two rarely coincide.

 

Cough! Cough! Is there an actual answer somewhere in that smoke? My question was based on the natural world. Lots of other mammals that occupy the same time and space as Bigfoot have no problem leaving behind fossils. What's up with BF? Got nothing to do with me holding nature to a stop watch. It's all about expecting Bigfoot to act like an actual living, breathing animal in North America.

 

Dmaker, you're cute when you're mad. Seriously, you're soooo smart, and I can hear the genuine passion and frustration in you. I wish there were some way to address some of your concerns -- because your discomfort feels very genuine to me, and nobody should have to suffer that much discomfort for such an extended period of time -- especially not when, like you, they work so hard to stay on track and express themselves as well as they can (which in your case is very, very well) -- and all without attacking anyone personally.

 

I feel for you, buddy. And I can't believe I'm the only one on my side of the "fence"who does. The only problem is, you're asking many, many people to subvert the testimony of their own eyes, ears, and noses to please you -- and that's the one thing nobody can do for you, no matter how much they love you. (And they do love you. Well, I do, anyway!) 

 

What could we do, short of somehow throwing the reins of our own lives over to you, that would make it easier for you to be here?  

 

Edited to add: I missed all the posts that have been added since your first response to WSA about the Bindernagel article. Amazing, what people are saying to you. Do you see how seriously they take you, and how much they really would like to make things easier for you, and all of us! and how you brought out those thoughts and feelings? Your concerns are heard and valued. There's just no way to address them, beyond what people here have just said. 

 

You are absolutely right Leaf. And I don't know why I don't just walk away more often. I should just stop reading these boards because I always end up engaging someone and having the same old argument over and over again. No matter how much I point out what seem to me to be glaring issues with BF claim, people are still going to choose to ignore it and believe because they want to. Or they saw "something". There are a few here that will engage and talk about the "evidence", but that gets us no where either. The evidence is weak and getting weaker all the time. That is not likely to change, so discussing a manure pile while it just gets bigger has little merit. I really ought to just walk away and let folks oooh and ahhh over their woo. Sometimes I'm just a jerk I guess

Though I do thank-you for your post Leaf. Sometimes all of us need someone to tap us on the shoulder and let us know we can't really dig our way to China no matter how hard we try. Thanks

Edited May 7, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

dmaker- to me, almost as much as validation would be, to be with someone who has never seen or experienced  a very close vocalization and see the look on their face, or to be there if/when a dougter has their own eye-witness would truely be a treasure. Good luck in your quest.

[Guest]

I gotta say, I have a lot of respect for dmaker.  He patiently explains and re-explains his stance time and again without making it personal.  And I think he plays an important role for a forum like this.  I have not had a personal experience, but I WANT to believe - I have wanted to for years since I was a kid and watched the Boggy Creek movie.  Someone like dmaker helps to keep me grounded in what I know, and not jump to conclusions based upon what I want.

 

In my experience I have seen three types of scenarios when it comes to providing evidence worthy of proof.

 

A)  People who say they can provide proof, but choose not to for whatever reason. 

 

2)  People who say they can provide proof, but continually hoax.  (It's truly amazing how many times the BF community allows these people to wash/rinse/repeat the same thing.)

 

C)  People who try desperately to provide proof, but come up short time and time again.  (It's also truly amazing that not ONE person who says they can provide proof fall in this category - they all fall in A.) 

 

I guess in the end we need an option 4 - people who can and do provide proof.  I think that until that happens BF will not be accepted in mainstream society - as perhaps it shouldn't be. 

[dmaker]

^^ I agree with you Nod, but you forgot one key scenario:

$) People who say they can provide proof, but ask for money first.

[Guest]

I kind of lump that into a combination of A) and 2).  The guy selling the "memberships" falls into 2 and the suckers shelling out the clams fall into A (because of NDAs or, more likely, realization they got duped but will never admit it.)

[WSA]

dmaker, if you want to be treated seriously on this subject (and I know you do) it would be incumbent on you to say where Bindernagel's scientific analysis is faulty...not merely that corroborating proof has not arrived fast enough to suit you.  Otherwise, you are no less of a "believer" than some here.

[dmaker]

^^ I don't have the book here with me at the office, but a couple of things that come to mind are pictures of holes in the earth that are described as the result of a Sasquatch digging for hibernating mice. Where are the accompanying pictures of Sasquatch engaged in said activity? Where is the DNA left behind that was analyzed and proven to come from Sasquatch? In other words, that is another empty BF claim. The book has many of just those sorts of claims. That's just one that stands out right now. The other thing would be a rather heavy reliance on anecdotal evidence and why it should compel science to take a stronger interest. That argument, in general, holds little water with me, but it is one of the main thrusts of the early part of the book. He even includes some pretty out there stories. One, I believe it came from Manitoba, of a hunter that shot one. Killed it. But then never really did anything about it. That's a bit hard to swallow. If you would like, I will prepare a more in depth comment on the book, I just can't do it off the top of my head at work.

[WSA]

Let's not overlook 3). Those who apply the scientific method to the presented evidence and create testable hypotheses. 

 

(The only ones I really care to engage with)

 

The NWAC for instance, in S.E. Oklahoma's area X. They say (to paraphrase): We've found compelling evidence. We've disclosed it in great detail. Our position is the Wood Ape is present there. We'll test that by devoting our time, energy and funds until we take a type specimen, or we run out of time, energy and money first.  If we kill a Wood Ape, we'll disclose everything, no strings attached, no waiting. In the meanwhile, we have nothing to sell you, no movie opening to flog and the price of admission is only an open mind.

 

That is just what good scientists do.  All the rest is just sound and fury.

[dmaker]

Not arguing with the Wood Ape folks approach. It seems sound. But at what point does absence of evidence mean evidence of absence in regards to AreaX and Wood Ape gang? 5 more years? 10 more years? If one says those woods over there are filled with Bigfoot, er, Wood Apes, yet after quite a bit of time and searching no one has returned with any evidence of their presence, then surely that absence of evidence must be evidence of absence? That, in fact, those woods are not full of Wood Apes after all. Just like every other BF-WoodApe claim.