A Question(S) For Skeptics....

[dmaker]

With the question put that way, I still find it difficult to think of things that impress me that much more than others. But surely there must be some.  I think reports from people on this forum that I find likeable and not combative for argument's sake alone I find make me think a bit. For example, Cotter's story. Even though it is third hand, and when dealing with anecdotes third hand cuts the likelihood of it being authentic in half, I still find I pause  a moment and wonder what really happened. The reason I do that is that Cotter seems like a reasonable person, agenda less, and completely sane. He seems like the type of person that if he says he totally trusts a source then there must be something to that trust. And when he reports a trusted source and another person had a prolonged encounter, then that makes me think a bit. But in the end I have to realize that I don't really know Cotter ( or any other member here that I find to be sane and credible), and I cannot preclude that he maybe is not ( no offense ) a good a judge of deception or character as I would think, or that he is not being duped, or that there is no deception going on at all and what his trusted sources saw was, in fact, a hunter in a ghillie suit or some other thing. So again, all anecdotal reports end up in the same bucket for me. Some just take a bit more scrutiny before they get there. 

 

Although I have always thought the PGF was fake, there are still moments where I find myself looking at it and the 11 yr old boy in me starts thinking "...well maybe..". But then I stop squinting, take of my wishful thinking spectacles and realize, yup..fake. 

 

As far as trackways and sounds go. I am not an expert in either, so I don't really let myself go down the road of being convinced by those. I could be too easily duped. So when I see a track way that looks kind of interesting or bi-pedal I just assume there is a perfectly rational explanation for it. I don't know what it is, because I know nothing about tracks, period. The answer, in some cases, is painfully obvious to some, so I usually await some other's analysis and opinions. Otherwise I would run off thinking they are all Bigfoot tracks.  Same thing with audio. I am not deeply versed in the sounds of the wild. I hear them all the time as I'm in the woods often, but I don't associate each and every one to it's species. I just rather enjoy the cacophony while I'm outdoors.  I've seen some pretty impressive audio debunking done here and on other web sites that have some truly creepy sounding noises that, of course, were eventually identified as fox or some other common animal. 

 

Hope that does a better job of answering your question Norse. 

Edited June 24, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

Dmaker thanks for sharing!

[Cotter]

 

So because of that flawed mindset, I think Skeptics knee jerk reaction is to push back against that evidence. They want to prove hoaxes to then drag the whole issue through the mud.

 

 

Let's not forget those 'skeptics' that are hoaxing themselves to perpetuate this "pattern" of trackway and sighting hoaxes.

 

Let's take those off the table....

[dmaker]

Cotter, I would posit that there is more hoaxed evidence from proponents than from skeptics. Particularly the proponents that have something to be gained from the Bigfoot myth machine. Be that monetary, or status, or attention or all three. Skeptics have less to gain from hoaxes than the BF charlatans do. 

 

Don't be so quick to blame hoaxes on skeptics. They are not the obvious choice. I would even bet some of those proponents pulling your leg are fairly high up the BF food chain. Look at Ketchum for example.  Or for the lower end of the food chain, you have how many Toejams out there hoaxing for personal gain?  You don't see skeptics hoaxing endlessly on Youtube channels, do you?  Skeptics don't host Not-Finding Bigfoot camp outs for $500 a trip. If the BF evidence dried up, all those revenue generators would disappear. Who stands to gain from keeping that rumor mill churning?

 

 

Unless I misunderstood you, in which case I apologize in advance. 

Edited June 24, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

I do firmly believe, at some point, both the dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, and the non-witnessing proponent have to go to the field to retain their credibility and further their education.  We (me included) indulge in a lot of armchair research and parsing of stuff. In the end though, we can either wait for the answer to possibly come to us through the agency of others who are out in the field (and we all know what is required on that score) or we can get "out there" and see what life is doing, while we are passively waiting on it to send us a certified letter. Those here who tell me they are out there on a regular basis are the guys and gals I will spend my time listening to, no matter what their conclusions are.

 

What I believe Norseman's original question was, is: If you were going to follow up on some evidence, what would it be? Posed in a different way: If you received a grant for a squillion $ to try and confirm the Sasquatch for science, what would you do first?

 

As I believe any serious non-witnessing student of this subject  should have a healthy dose of skeptic in him, I'll step up and take a swat at answering this, to wit:  People make people tracks, even while wearing BF stompers.  Go where the frequency of people is way down on the list of possibilities. Look for the tracks no person is likely to have made.  Prepare yourself to sit for days on end without much of anything happening. You may not return with anything more than you had going in. You may have a life altering experience.  You may have the living crap scared out of you. Unless you shoot what you might find and bring it with you, be prepared to only gain personal confirmation, not the answer to a bigger question, and not riches, fame or anything that will help you meet attractive women or influence powerful people.

 

Does this sound like anything that is easy to do? Does the possible pay-off even approach the investment required? We might start here if we want to know why there is no definitive answer to the ultimate question we hope to see answered in our lifetimes.  Who amongst us has the ability/knowledge/time/endurance/money/patience to invest in something like what I've described?    

[1980squatch]

 But in the end I have to realize that I don't really know Cotter ( or any other member here that I find to be sane and credible), and I cannot preclude that he maybe is not ( no offense ) a good a judge of deception or character as I would think, or that he is not being duped, or that there is no deception going on at all and what his trusted sources saw was, in fact, a hunter in a ghillie suit or some other thing. So again, all anecdotal reports end up in the same bucket for me.

 

Just to add to this, many if not most folks who have known a witness for years, and have total trust in them, will not believe in BF just because of their encounter story.  They put it in the same bins dmaker has.

 

One of the pain points for the witness segment of the BF community...

[Guest DWA]

I won't think that sasquatch is real until it's proven to me.  Video or photo, under compelling circumstances, that I can look at and say:  no way is that human.  And documented in a reliable news outlet with additional information that sells me.  Minimum.

 

A very trusted person ranks ahead of most stories.  But it's still just one story.

[dmaker]

@ WSA: I don't have the ability/knowledge/time/endurance/money/patience to invest in what you have described. I also don't have a realistic proximity to anything that I would call even potentially squatchy. I live in South Western Ontario. I hike the Bruce Trail all the time. In fact, it is only about 30 mins from my home. It is about as remote as it gets without a 3 hour drive or so to reach the southern border of Alqonquin Park ( what I deem to be the closest thing to wilderness within driving distance to me). Unlike Youtubers Toejam and Timbergiant, I don't find the urban green spaces of SWO to be terribly convincing as Sasquatch habitat.  So I would have to start there in the remote parts of Alqonquin Park and maybe work my way north. There are not that many credible reports coming out of Ontario, so not a lot to lure even a convinced squatch hunter to my area. 

 

I was in the Sierra mountains for a week recently backpacking. I kept my eye out, but of course did not see anything of BF interest really. A tree crashed somewhere near us and a small object was tossed at me during a protein bar break, but I am positive there are perfectly mundane explanations for both of those. 

 

So I'm not really in a position to do a lot of serious field research.  Partly because I don't consider tromping around my local conservation area/picnic ground to be a serious endeavor. I also, of course, lack the conviction. I find BF interesting, I truly do. I wouldn't be here otherwise.  I might even go so far as saying it's the most important question from a species discovery point of view in our lifetime. But to say it is the ultimate question of our lifetime?  Now that is seriously over stating the case in my opinion.  So without deep conviction or motivation I am not sure how much field squatching I would do that is not incidental to my regular activities like hiking, mountain biking, kayaking, etc, even if I lived in what I would consider to be better proximity to likely habitat.

Edited June 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Drew]

 

 

So because of that flawed mindset, I think Skeptics knee jerk reaction is to push back against that evidence. They want to prove hoaxes to then drag the whole issue through the mud.

 

 

Let's not forget those 'skeptics' that are hoaxing themselves to perpetuate this "pattern" of trackway and sighting hoaxes.

 

Let's take those off the table....

 

 

Let's say a hoaxer planted a trackway in order to catch 'true' bigfooters trying to discover which Bigfooter actually made the tracks?   If he recorded a major player in Bigfootry saying to another : "Hey, I didn't make these, did you?"  would you then be thanking the skeptic for showing the true nature of the Bigfoot game?

[Guest DWA]

No.  Based on information presented, I'd thank the two Bigfooters for being properly skeptical.  But that's just me.

[dmaker]

I see DWA, so it's common for BF investigators to first ask the BF community if they hoaxed the evidence?

 

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. 

[Guest DWA]

Um, where'd you get that?

 

Jumping to conclusions, bigfoot skeptics are really good at that.  Untested assumptions, that too.

 

Grasping at straws, even more.

 

What's your deadline?

It's like WSA pointed out:  if you aren't investing anything in this, you aren't getting anything back.  No surprise there, huh.

[Guest]

I love it when people say they won't believe until they see a clear photo or video of one, or someone produces a body or pieces. To me I believe all of that is extremely unlikely. Not because they don't exist, but because they generally are only active at night, and know how to remain hidden in daytime. I also believe that they have learned how to co-exist with us, and where they can and cannot go depending on time of day or year etc., and may even have more of a presence around here than anyone even can dream. I cannot speak to anything other than my own experience, but this is a "You have to see it to believe it" thing and it could take years spending time in the woods just to find evidence, or have even an unexplainable encounter. People have different personalities as I believe BF's do, so maybe in different areas encounters or evidence will be different. But a couch potato skeptic will always be a skeptic. Those skeptics that do get out there, well maybe one day your mind will be changed. Don't give up.

[Guest DWA]

Well some of us - like me - don't think this is about belief.  That's why I said that until it's proven to me, it's not.

 

Now if I personally see one, what everyone else thinks can go hang.  But until I see something that convinces me that proof has been obtained, or until I personally see one, then it's not proven to me.

[dmaker]

Um, where'd you get that?

 

Jumping to conclusions, bigfoot skeptics are really good at that.  Untested assumptions, that too.

 

Grasping at straws, even more.

 

What's your deadline?

It's like WSA pointed out:  if you aren't investing anything in this, you aren't getting anything back.  No surprise there, huh.

What? How does that even remotely address my question? You have a scenario where one BF investigator asks the other BF investigator if he hoaxed the tracks. You say this is an example of them being skeptical, not dishonest. So I then ask you, is this SOP for investigators to first ask other investigators if they hoaxed the evidence. 

 

I have no idea how your response goes to straws and timelines and investing.  But anyway, chose not to answer it properly that is fine since it will most likely create another thread derail and we've been asked to be more aware of that here.