A Question(S) For Skeptics....

[norseman]

Since I seem to be constantly stuck in no man's land between true believer and skeptic.

 

And my goal is to collect a type specimen if they do indeed exist.....Sasquatch that is.

 

Is there ANY evidence that skeptics find compelling out there?

 

The spectrum of believers goes from mildly interested in the subject to someone who attributes almost every thing they see and hear in the woods to Sasquatch.

 

Do skeptics have a similar spectrum? Or is everyone locked in behind their shield wall?

 

My position is unique.......I certainly read a lot of reports that make me roll my eyes. But some things I find compelling and if one is going to search for this thing, some discernment between what is bogus and what truly could be? IS VERY IMPORTANT. Remember........we are not talking about proof here, we are talking about evidence that leads to proof.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest openminded skeptic]

I guess I'm sort of like you in mindset.  I'm skeptical in the sense that only compelling evidence that can't be hoaxed will prove that bigfoot exists . For example bones, a body, parts of a body, uncontaminated DNA. That's the way I look at things in general. Show me proof or compelling evidence or else I'll reserve judgement.  Nevertheless, there is a lot of evidence for bigfoot (which is different from proof) so the subject is certainly worth investigating.  However there is also lot of "noise" in the form of hoaxers and the credulous who think every shadow and noise in the woods is a bigfoot.

 

No, I haven't read about any evidence that is "compelling" in the sense that I want to say "Yes, these creatures definitely exist."  but there is enough to make me say "please keep looking, and please don't shoot some stupid teenager hoaxer wearing a gilly suit while you are at it."

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

Of course there is. The evidence makes for a very strong case for Bigfoot's existence. Now I don't know everything there is to know but I have a brain that is cooking 110% of the time and is good at putting pieces together enough to expand thinking and dialogue. I'm a chess player and am in the home troubleshooting industry so problem solving and looking at things in different ways is what I do. The threads I have here so far I think are good food for thought. Off base? Sure, maybe some ideas are but the point is I NEVER stop picking things apart but instead go for logical underpinnings in an effort at cracking a code of sorts. Like Bigfoot.

As in the UFO scene there are those that are fearful of being hurt, or even eaten by ET after we're invaded and the world taken from us. The ones they don't eat right away will be hauled off into space as slaves to be eaten later. Now mind you there is no proof of ET and scant if any evidence. SSQ on the other hand HAS evidence in abundance and as "openminded skeptic" said enough to keep up the pursuit.

P.S. Know anyone at the USFWS that does the bear-hair samples from Selkirk?

Edited June 23, 2013 by hiflier

[dmaker]

I sort of moved through phases starting with a mild interest and a notion that they could possibly exist fed by theories encountered while watching documentaries and reading Bigfoot sites. I started digging more and read Meldrum's book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science and Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch. I also read Coleman's History of Apes in North America ( or something like that). I have read a seemingly endless number of web articles and forum posts and encounter stories over the past couple of years as well. After being exposed to the evidence out there and the circus that is the BF community, I have moved from an uninformed curiosity to a wishful thinking/growing doubt to completely convinced there is no such thing as a BF. Looking back I actually feel a bit silly for even entertaining the idea in the first place. It's not until I started looking more deeply into Bigfoot that I began to see exactly what it is all about: one giant con. It's fed from the top down and supported by wide eyed believers that just want to, well, believe. Words like science and research are used to make it sound like a genuine pursuit, but in the end it's all smoke and mirrors. So, no. There is no middle ground for me anymore.

 

This is, of course, my opinion and nothing more. But it is backed up by one important fact:  where is the monkey?

Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker

[Midnight Owl]

I just don't think the Bigfoot/Saquatch will be proven to the public in my remaining lifetime. I'm not over the hill, but have a pretty good look at it now! Not being negative, just honest! Shoot, most believers can't even produce a good clear picture of one, let alone a live subject! That fact doesn't prove anything one way or another! I never seen my backbone, but that doesn't mean it does not exist!

I started out in the middle trying to digest the first incident of having a large object tossed at my son and I while night fishing. From there I followed several Bigfoot research organizations for reliable answers but quickly picked up on the politics, back biting and self professed experts, some of which had no formal training or experience to qualify them for anything! Then there were the cadre simple minded groupies wanting to believe anything and one brick short of a load! Many distractions to wade through!

My adivce for anyone stuck in the middle is do some personal research, meet and network with reliable people then get out there and experience things for yourself. You will be thoroughly surprised at what awaits you!...Just my opinion, but it worked very well for me!!

[Guest Grifter9931]

I entertain the idea of "BF" partly because of the theory "wheres the smoke there is fire"

But its a belief I would never push on someone else until I had something tangible/irrefutable.

If I were to pressed on the issue by what I have seen/read on the internet, asked through connections I have in my network.

It would be an interesting choice for sure. I haven't put in the time being a BFer like most of the folks here, so maybe I am more of an optimist that there being a BF out in the bush.

 

But as I read more and more about the "creature/being" commonly referred to as BF. The attitude of the community is very interesting at times and at other times out right maddening. Wether that's fair to the community, is up for interpretation. But from my point of view, its can be a very small minded group.

 

I have met some interesting folks here and had some rather interesting conversations, which is all part of the cyrpto experience. After a while you are either on the far right or the far left. There is no middle ground.

[norseman]

Again........we are not talking proof but evidence to lead us to proof.

 

Do Skeptics find any evidence compelling?

 

Dmaker, you seem to be missing the point here. One must follow the evidence, to follow and get the monkey. We cannot sit back and dismiss all evidence and wait for the monkey to fall into our lap. I realize that you feel there is nothing out there. But you have to understand that for those of us that do choose to go look? Do not have the luxury of simply dismissing all evidence. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and go with our best leads.

[Guest Grifter9931]

Norseman,

 

Due to the amount of first hand sightings. One has to be at least curious what all these folks are seeing/ reporting.

The evidence of a BF would be of course clear and concise pictures or a body or anything along the same lines.

That would lead the scientific community to have to give some credence that a large animal other than the ones we are currently aware of are out in forest etc. 

 

Hence, if that were the case. You would have more and more biologist out there looking for and starting a meaningful catalog of all things BF.

Which would mean more resources being out in the "field" and a better chance than we have now of finding or locating one of these animals.

As of right now, what evidence would you put forth as being reliable or credible in your mind?

 

Bearing in mind that the evidence should be able to make someone who is totally neutral second guess themselves and say okay BF is definitely out here, this is where we should look.... If you can source any of that please let me know so I can get more educated on the subject?

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman:

Evidence like this:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/02/new-bigfoot-trackway-discovered-in-oregon/

[dmaker]

Norseman,

 

Due to the amount of first hand sightings. One has to be at least curious what all these folks are seeing/ reporting.

The evidence of a BF would be of course clear and concise pictures or a body or anything along the same lines.

That would lead the scientific community to have to give some credence that a large animal other than the ones we are currently aware of are out in forest etc. 

 

Hence, if that were the case. You would have more and more biologist out there looking for and starting a meaningful catalog of all things BF.

Which would mean more resources being out in the "field" and a better chance than we have now of finding or locating one of these animals.

As of right now, what evidence would you put forth as being reliable or credible in your mind?

 

Bearing in mind that the evidence should be able to make someone who is totally neutral second guess themselves and say okay BF is definitely out here, this is where we should look.... If you can source any of that please let me know so I can get more educated on the subject?

Norse, I firmly believe that all of the evidence is either an error in identification or a hoax by a human being. So yeah, I do dismiss it all. So I cannot really answer your question I guess since no evidence is worth following up in my opinion. 

 

Maybe you could ask Bipto if he minds if you go down and shoot one of his wood apes?

Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Pretty much what dmaker said above.

 

I find NONE of the bigfoot evidence compelling.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Anyone care for a follow-up?

http://www.northamericanbigfoot.com/2012/02/london-or-footprint-find.html
 

Hello All,

 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jvwTe1y5vjM/T0QzXQOKX0I/AAAAAAAADjM/q_6BfnMkIic/s1600/photo+(23)+(1).JPG

 

 

Soil samples would help in determining the density of the substrate, moisture content, etc. So would knowing that information coupled the physiology of walking, stride and other such data allow for a determination of size and weight? I would think so. Where in BFdom would one get that kind of info. From Dr. Meldrum perhaps?

 

 

Edited June 23, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest Cervelo]

There are people who put a tremendous amount of effort into this just for the fun of it...

Oh look a mid-tarsal break...

Edited June 23, 2013 by Cervelo

[Guest DWA]

This excerpt from Barackman's writeup:

 

"For now, allow me to leave you with this thought...  To my knowledge, over 12 bigfooters and several laymen were involved in this event to varying degrees.  Those bigfooters represent a wide array of perspectives on the nature of sasquatches, from the "ape" camp to the "human" camp, and from "flesh and blood" to the so-called "paranormal."  This event would not be what it is today without all of them, despite our diverse perspectives.  Disagreeing on the nature of the phenomenon did not, and should not, preclude working together for the greater good and increased understanding of these amazing creatures.  It will be interesting to see what can be learned from this singular event, but perhaps there is another good that might emerge from it.  I hope this event stands as a symbol of what can be accomplished if we, the bigfoot community, put down our perceived differences and work collaboratively for the greater good of the species, rather than continuing the posturing and infighting that so often pollutes our dialogue."

 

Spoken like a scientist...and the way too few of them speak,  too rarely.

 

I'd consider this compelling.  Any other known North American mammal make these?  Show me your proof.

 

That a hoax would be assumed here is naïve to say the least.  Naïve is what hoaxers are, and the main reason the hoaxes really aren't part of the discussion.

Edited June 23, 2013 by DWA

[daveedoe]

Since I seem to be constantly stuck in no man's land between true believer and skeptic.

 

 

this is where I am.

 

For me I saw a trackway in the snow once, very compelling, the other was a vocal at a lake, the best close encounter for me. Still no creature seen. In both those incidents my best conclusion would be Bigfoot. No people around and just not a good time or place to do a hoax.

 

A trackway for me with good tracks found away from areas people frequent, might be compeling enough. Maybe hair samples if the hair is from an unknown creature. A tooth is all that is needed but good luck on that.