A Question(S) For Skeptics....

[hiflier]

Hello Midnight Owl,

Hear ya BUT are The MIB's capable of switching hats like that? In BFdom would MIB's (Monkeys In Black?) be the ones in the forest cavorting between trees and parading around in front of the iphones of the uninitiated? LOL. All jokes aside IF (a big unlikely IF too) that were the case, that Sasquatch was already a specimen somewhere, then the only reason to keep the lid on IMHO is to keep those that want the thrill of a lifetime of shooting them by the flatbed-full are not given a handhold to do so. I say this because TPTB are not always the bad guys.

Edited June 23, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

Personally, I think government is already spending its limited bucks on too much.

 

The biggest stride that could possibly be made in this field, the way things are now, is that the knee-jerk negativity, backed by essentially nothing, by the scientific mainstream simply stop.

 

For the new generation of scientists in school now, solving this mystery should be an OK thing not only to talk about, but to commit oneself to doing.  It should be encouraged.

 

Read the introduction to J. Robert Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch.  Read George Schaller's foreword to Meldrum's book, or Leila Hadj-Chikh's foreword to Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch.  (Then read the books.)  That is how scientists talk about a topic.

 

Read Naish's "Frame 352, And All That."  Here.

 

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/11/frame-352-and-all-that.html

 

That is serious science applied to this topic.

 

If the idiotic kneejerk uninformed negativity stopped, we'd get confirmation quicker than anyone expects, I bet.

 

But that requires a lot of clearly uninformed scientists to get informed first.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

You should have been a journalist. No kidding.

[Guest DWA]

Hello DWA,

You should have been a journalist. No kidding.

I'm using such opportunities as I have to sort-of make up for it.

 

My brother was one.  Died way too soon, though.

[Incorrigible1]

I think the only real solution to this controversial subject that even all the Bigfoot/Sasquatch interest groups can't agree on, is that a government agency with qualified professionals take a hard serious look at this phenomenon and be totally open to the public.

Absolutely not. Nor do I wish my government engage in any other wild goose chases. This is strictly a private enterprise, until far more substantial evidence or even probability is produced.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

Sorry about your bro'. Your're doing a good job. No patronizing here, I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Edited June 23, 2013 by hiflier

[TD-40]

 

 

 

There have been too many sightings from people who have no vested interest in bigfoot describing their characteristics as consistent, and the history, legend, and lore are too consistent for me to disregard their existence.

Does consistency of reports and sightings over time immemorial from people who have not vested interest in them make for compelling evidence, or just intrigue?

I would suggest (and have any times) there's as much or more "evidence", certainly more historical...of these guys than bigfoot.

http://www.livescience.com/25559-dragons.html

Do you think there are dragons still around?

Do you know of any recent reports of dragons not from a bygone era? Any town hall meetings where people discuss their sightings?

Here ya go...no town hall meeting that's the confirmation ...whew boy!

Sorry couldn't get the link to work but if you go to tube and search pterodactyl numerous ones will come up

And some reports...

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/04/stunning-evidence-of-living-pterodactyls-2064568.html

 

as I stated, having consistent reports and eyewitness accounts means something. Whew boy! is right.

Nice to see that even pteradactyls are still around, too.

[dmaker]

Personally, I think government is already spending its limited bucks on too much.

 

The biggest stride that could possibly be made in this field, the way things are now, is that the knee-jerk negativity, backed by essentially nothing, by the scientific mainstream simply stop.

 

For the new generation of scientists in school now, solving this mystery should be an OK thing not only to talk about, but to commit oneself to doing.  It should be encouraged.

 

Read the introduction to J. Robert Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch.  Read George Schaller's foreword to Meldrum's book, or Leila Hadj-Chikh's foreword to Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch.  (Then read the books.)  That is how scientists talk about a topic.

 

Read Naish's "Frame 352, And All That."  Here.

 

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/11/frame-352-and-all-that.html

 

That is serious science applied to this topic.

 

If the idiotic kneejerk uninformed negativity stopped, we'd get confirmation quicker than anyone expects, I bet.

 

But that requires a lot of clearly uninformed scientists to get informed first.

I have done that reading. I have also, in fact, quoted Leila Hadj-Chikh's foreword to Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch in another thread probably about six months ago. It's great reading. Particularly if you lean towards Sasquatch being real. 

 

I still maintain my position however. 

Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker

[BobbyO]

As a witness, can I still chime in ?

I don't find any compelling at all, except the PGF.

The rest I think is incredibly poor standard where "evidence" is concerned but the problem I have is that as I witness I know they're there so WHY isn't there no evidence ?

That's what I'm really scratching my head about and another reason I give them so much credit.

Its also a big reason why I'm going after my own "evidence" from the comforts of my own couch via the wonderful SSR which is very possible to do and will at worst be on a par if not better that 99% of current public evidence when I'm finished what I'm doing..

[MIB]

I agree, BobbyO.   Aside from my own personal experience, and the PGF, there is not much in the way of single pieces of evidence I find compelling.   Taken as a whole, some, like the sheer number of tracks, are definitely intriguing / interesting. 

 

As you say, being a witness, KNOWING they are out there, the lack of evidence is puzzling -> disturbing.  There's something more to the picture that is missing, there has to be something wrong with our assumptions to account for that apparent disconnect.

 

MIB

[slabdog]

Notice:

Norseman asked a very specific question.

Keep the thread on topic.

[dmaker]

Begging pardon, slabdog, but I don't think the question, as it was asked, is really that specific:

 

Is there ANY evidence that skeptics find compelling out there?

 

That is invariably going to lead into discussions about why or why not a particular type/piece of evidence is or is not compelling. That seems to have thread sprawl written all over it. 

 

How should we respond to keep this thread more narrowed?

 

Now if Norse is simply looking for support for his lethal collection initiative and wants everyone to chime and say, yes a body is what it will take, then why not just have a poll thread?

Edited June 23, 2013 by dmaker

[slabdog]

Not my point dmaker.

I'm assuming that Norse didn't want this thread to devolve into another slugfest between believers and skeptics.

There are about 1000 other threads here to see that go down.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

On the one side, all evidence proves my belief that BF is real. On the other, There is no proof seen in the evidence- what little there is. So yes, there is a curve on both side of the issue. Hardliners at opposite ends. For myself I'm 95% neutral with a lean toward existence via evidence. That being said, the range and degree of skepticism varies as much as the range and degree of belief. I would like proof like anyone else if for nothing else than to end my own internal debate which is infinitely more maddening that anything on a Forum.

I've never had an encounter but I do not "believe" they exist. I THINK that they do though; there is a huge difference. But until something solid comes out of the pile I'm not yet convinced without doubt. The short answer to the OP is absolutely: there is a variable within the realm of "Camp Skeptic".

Edited June 24, 2013 by hiflier

[norseman]

Not my point dmaker.

I'm assuming that Norse didn't want this thread to devolve into another slugfest between believers and skeptics.

There are about 1000 other threads here to see that go down.

He can correct me if I am wrong.

 

Thanks Slabdog.

 

Let's look at it this way.

 

100% Belief<<<<<<<<<<<<<evidence>>>>>>>>>>>>>>100% Non belief

 

Despite the discussions that Slab dog is talking about in which it's just a Yes or No slugfest between believer and skeptic.........there is some gray area in between. No photo or track is proof......and I'm not asking skeptics to accept it as proof.

 

But is there ANY evidence out there that makes them raise their eyebrow abit? Obviously many will simply upon encountering such evidence run right back to their default position which is that Sasquatch is a myth. They are playing the odds and I understand that.

 

But it would nice to hear if skeptics find a particular piece of evidence compelling.

 

I'm a proponent in that, I believe in the possibility of Sasquatch.........but I've never seen it, so I cannot say that I believe in Sasquatch. Or I know.......Sasquatch exists.

 

But I do find some things very compelling, such as:

 

Snow track ways that exhibit characteristics beyond human scale.

The PGF, I think is compelling.

Track ways that exhibit curling toes, or some form of non rigid foot.

Indian legends I find compelling especially after the discovery of the Hobbit.

And I've had my own track way encounter.

 

What I said above isn't important, I'm just throwing my own interests in the subject out there to show people kinda what I'm looking for in this thread.

 

And if you say "NADA, Nothing at all", that's OK too......