Current State Of Affairs

[Old Dog]

I was going to make this comment on another thread, but the more I wrote, the more it seemed to apply to a lot of threads here, so I gave it it's own life.  ~ OD

 

 

 

So, another thread with the usual back and forth comments trying to toss a zinger at the last poster or two.  Has anyone ever come to the conclusion that working in conjunction with each other, you know, believer and skeptic, that what we all want will come out in the end?  The believers and the skeptics both only want the truth.  Instead of taking shots at each other to try and bolster your own position, working through what is offered as evidence may produce more results.  

 

Why do you think it is that so many of us refuse to release anything they find to any but a select few?  It isn't because what we find we think is untrue or not actually evidence at all.  It is because they don't want to be caught up in the never ending debate that is sure to follow.  If the findings were offered and then looked at subjectively by ALL involved, believers and skeptics alike, some progress would be made.  Forcing the findings to be kept within a small circle severely limits it's exposure to scrutiny, but does put a much wanted buffer between the person who has the evidence and the yahoos who just use it to spur an argument for no other reason than recreation.  Sure, some findings offered by people silly enough to believe it will be looked a with all due sincerity start off well, but then the conversation slips back into a back and forth of personalities and oneupsmanship, and never comes back down to the issue at hand, just veiled insults tossed back and forth, until the thread is basically non-recoverable.

 

The evidence offered SHOULD be torn apart bit by bit.  That is the only way we will find out if it is inconclusive.  The person who offers the evidence should NOT be torn apart in the same fashion.  Sadly, this is what happens too many times.  Therefore, the reluctance exists.   Then when someone puts out evidence that may be flawed by one factor or another, and they offer something additional later, they are labeled a hoaxer.  Sure, some are hoaxers, and should have their "evidence" no longer reviewed, but to start to attack them on the forums gives their hoax legitimacy to them, and they will continue doing the same just to get the members all wound up and arguing.  To them it is recreation.  If we don't look at it and feed their personality, they will move on.  By the same token, we should not have what I now call the Paula Deen reaction, automatically dismissing a persons evidence for something that may have been a mistake long ago.  Look at what they have, scrutinize it and offer your opinion in a concise and logical manner without attacking the poster.  If they get rude and try to argue, just move along.  It is really hard to argue with yourself.  If they keep offering what appears to be hoaxes time and time again, just don't give it any traction, just pass it by.  The hoaxer will soon move on due to not getting what they so badly need, attention.

 

For both sides of the coin to engage in a petty back and forth of insults and ridicule does neither side any good.  Believers start to look like loons, and skeptics start to look like trolls.  Maybe there is a bit of that on both sides, but when threads fall into this realm, they make everyone involved look silly.  I'm not saying we shouldn't exchange viewpoints, but we should keep it civil if we want our point to be taken seriously.  There are any number of people who post, that when I see their name in the reply, I just go to the next and don't even give their post a view because I know from their many past posts what is going to be there, and they don't add to the conversation.

 

So, in the end of this long winded opinion piece it comes down to this for me.  Now mind you, this is just my opinion, and you can take it for just that, one guys opinion.  If you can't get your idea or opinion across to the rest of the forum without being rude, insulting or out right hostile, maybe you're not getting your message across in the most effective manner to begin with.  If you want to be taken seriously and with respect, offer the same.  If we want to get to the bottom of the controversy surrounding the existence of the creature, we need to work together.  Sure one side will be disappointed in the end, but we will all be better for our efforts and for knowing the truth.  Some will still refuse to accept the truth, no matter how it all falls out, but then that happens on all issues, and that is human nature.

 

Offered respectfully, thanks for your time  ~  OD

Edited July 5, 2013 by chelefoot
To remove symbles for language

[BobbyO]

I was going to make this comment on another thread, but the more I wrote, the more it seemed to apply to a lot of threads here, so I gave it it's own life.  ~ OD

 

 

 

So, another thread with the usual back and forth comments trying to toss a zinger at the last poster or two.  Has anyone ever come to the conclusion that working in conjunction with each other, you know, believer and skeptic, that what we all want will come out in the end?  The believers and the skeptics both only want the truth.  Instead of taking shots at each other to try and bolster your own position, working through what is offered as evidence may produce more results.  

 

Offered respectfully, thanks for your time  ~  OD

Impossible.

The skeptic is skeptical for very good reason, the hard evidence where this animal is concerned is poor at best.

There are skeptics on this forum who simply would not believe that these animals existed if one came up and tapped them on the shoulder and proceeded to roar in they're faces, they would say it was a gust of wind and thunder then go and buy some glasses as they would think their eyes were failing.

Believers, I think, have a touch of romance in them in general, those without having any kind of encounter anyway.

That and they believe in humans a lot more than a skeptic would, and believe in those databases and the thousands of eyewitness sightings as they're fully aware th at North America is a very viable habitat for these animals and based on the laws of probability, at least one of those thousands of sightings would be the real deal then that's it, their belief would be correct.

Neither of these two people are ever gonna find mutual ground as their stances are at completely different ends of the subject in question.

Then of course there are the witnesses.

[Guest McGman]

 

I was going to make this comment on another thread, but the more I wrote, the more it seemed to apply to a lot of threads here, so I gave it it's own life.  ~ OD

 

 

 

So, another thread with the usual back and forth comments trying to toss a zinger at the last poster or two.  Has anyone ever come to the conclusion that working in conjunction with each other, you know, believer and skeptic, that what we all want will come out in the end?  The believers and the skeptics both only want the truth.  Instead of taking shots at each other to try and bolster your own position, working through what is offered as evidence may produce more results.  

 

Offered respectfully, thanks for your time  ~  OD

Impossible.

The skeptic is skeptical for very good reason, the hard evidence where this animal is concerned is poor at best.

There are skeptics on this forum who simply would not believe that these animals existed if one came up and tapped them on the shoulder and proceeded to roar in they're faces, they would say it was a gust of wind and thunder then go and buy some glasses as they would think their eyes were failing.

Believers, I think, have a touch of romance in them in general, those without having any kind of encounter anyway.

That and they believe in humans a lot more than a skeptic would, and believe in those databases and the thousands of eyewitness sightings as they're fully aware th at North America is a very viable habitat for these animals and based on the laws of probability, at least one of those thousands of sightings would be the real deal then that's it, their belief would be correct.

Neither of these two people are ever gonna find mutual ground as their stances are at completely different ends of the subject in question.

Then of course there are the witnesses.

 

I don't believe that at all.

 

I think with any type of CREDIBLE evidence skeptics would be more than willing to accept Bigfoots existence.

 

Instead all there is evidence wise is footprints, screams, knocks, which can all be faked.

And the eyewitness accounts, I'm sorry but that's not reliable evidence.

[BobbyO]

I don't believe that at all.

I think with any type of CREDIBLE evidence skeptics would be more than willing to accept Bigfoots existence.

Instead all there is evidence wise is footprints, screams, knocks, which can all be faked.

And the eyewitness accounts, I'm sorry but that's not reliable evidence.

See, a skeptic doesn't even believe it when I say that they don't believe in the existence of Sasquatches for good reason..

Edited July 4, 2013 by BobbyO

[MIB]

I have a dissenting view.

 

Remember, the guidelines are to promote discussion, not to promote proving.  If you are able to step back from your own positions and watch in abstract how "business is conducted", it becomes pretty obvious that the rules are not there to facilitate resolution of the bigfoot question.   I don't fault the mods, they just enforce the rules.   They're among our most kind and welcoming individuals ... just don't become the job they have to do.  (Says a guy with a warning point.  )   I don't know where the Steering Committee falls so far as defining the rules and guidelines so I do not necessarily fault them.   But someone, somewhere, has **designed** failure to resolve the bigfoot question into the very underlying structure and operation of the forum.   Why?   And .. accident or intent?

 

Ironic that observation has to come from MIB, huh? 

 

I have no issues with witnesses, "mere" believers, knowers, or honest skeptics.  My issues are with the scoffers masquerading as skeptics who are here adding nothing of value but asking disingenuous questions to derail debate, harassing people into silence, and so on.  They are quite good at staying just inside the boundaries of acceptable conduct while still achieving their purposes.

 

There's nothing that can be done about it unless the rules change.   As it stands this is a debate forum, not a bigfoot issue resolution forum.   It does not help the new witness who is dazed and confused with their world view turned upside down, it just throws them to the wolves.  Even I, who have been "at this" for over 35 years and generally a pretty thick skin, have personal stories I will not share here because of the environment.   I welcome honest questions, not the thinly veiled derision and ridicule I've seen others subjected to. 

 

The forum accomplishes its mandate ... discussion.  If you are frustrated by the lack of progress, look at the rules and guidelines again with a sharper eye.   If you're not getting what you're here for, perhaps what you're here for is not what the forum is here for.   I would not recommend BFF to a new witness.   The "help" water is too shallow and the "debate" water too deep for someone at that point in their journey. 

 

That's my observation.  Hopefully I don't get tossed out on my rear for sharing it.    

 

MIB

[BobbyO]

Plussed MIB

[Guest]

As a skeptic, and former long time believer, I think I see both sides of this. When I see believers making an argument for the existence of BF, I know I held that very same stance at one time, but now I look at it differently, over time I came to question my own beliefs. Over time I came to counter all the arguments I had used to convince those around me that BF was real. Those arguments, for the most part are universal, pick a category of evidence and the general answer is basically the same for those who support it. Why have no remains been found? Well, bear remains are rarely found, and we know bears are real! How could a guy, looking to film BF, actually film BF, yet nobody since has been able to repeat that success in almost fifty years? Well, he was in an area where BF had been leaving tracks, he just got lucky! Why did he never return to the area to look for further evidence or try to capture more footage? Well, because he was too busy trying to show the world what he had! Why has no hunter ever bagged a BF? Well, because BF is extra stealthy and those hunters who have had one in their sights have said it looked too much like a human! How do you know the PGF was not a guy in a suit? Well, it was impossible to make a convincing suit in 1967, because costume technology and material was not up to snuff back then...! 

 

I agree with what BobbyO said above about the 'touch of romance' believers have towards the topic. I know this applied to me. I wanted to believe. As I began to doubt myself, I kept moving the goal posts to accommodate my own belief. In the end I was ready accept that BF could exist if it was in the remote forests of the PNW, was mainly active at night, and had basically evolved a survival strategy that involved a strict avoidance of all other hominids at all costs...and on and on. Yet still, people were just as serious about BF in parts of NA where I believe there is no possible way BF could exist...while remaining yet unknown to modern science. So I had to come to the only conclusion I could, if it is everywhere...it is nowhere.

 

Today, I am almost a total skeptic. I think a part of me still clings to some hope that I am wrong, but my own logic and common sense view this possibility as basically non existent. Nothing would be more exciting than seeing something like a BF in the wild. And as a serious amateur photographer, who is out in the forests of Vancouver Island almost every night after I log off from work, I still have the big hairy in the back of my mind, and the binoculars close at hand. But deep down I know it is a myth, there is no such thing as BF. Wish that there was, but there's not, at least IMO.

 

Peace

Edited July 4, 2013 by summitwalker

[BobbyO]

 

 

Today, I am almost a total skeptic. I think a part of me still clings to some hope that I am wrong, but my own logic and common sense view this possibility as basically non existent. 

 

That's the romance in you SW..

[hiflier]

Hello Old Dog,

Thank you for your time as well. It's all good.

Edited July 4, 2013 by hiflier

[norseman]

All the arguing back and forth has nothing at all to do with the EXISTENCE of a possible unknown creature.

 

I believe, oh yah....... I don't believe................ad hominem. It's as if which ever side wins the argument decides the fate of the existence of the creature. The creature does not exist according to science. So from a human perspective in a macro view? The debate is already settled.

 

If proponents do not want to accept that view? Then the burden of proof rests with them........or excuse yourself from the debate and continue to believe in a fairy tale.

 

But know this also........if a unknown creature does exist in the wilds of America? Not all of the skeptics in the world with real cool logical talking points can make the species disappear........it's not up to them. Sasquatch does not wince or scream in pain every time a skeptic makes a really convincing argument. 

 

No body=no proof=no recognition=fairy tale.

 

I for one, am tired of believing in a fairy tale.

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

 

Could make it easy here.  If you're tired of "believing" in a fairytale then I have a quick out: THEY EXIST. There, that wasn't so hard.......... Now what. That 'What" would be just what you are doing. Believing is something means there's no evidence. Thinking something exists is entirely different. The leap between the two mindsets is a small one. The latter though does bring up the more serious issues. Like commitment. Nothing you don't already know about.

Edited July 4, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I am all for cooperation between believer and skeptic, and I do not think there should be any divide there to begin with. But, what I have noticed, and what bothers me quite a bit, are those skeptics who will never look at the available evidence objectively. The sheer fact that there are thousands of sighting reports alone should make a statement, but obviously a disbeliever is going to conclude that what was seen in every single one of those reports was something other than a sasquatch, or is a hoax. I do NOT find that being objective at all. I find that being entirely biased. Their mindset is that since bigfoot does not exist, all of those reports must be false. So while they may claim objectivity, they are totally and completely biased. And while this goes mainly for those who say they do not believe in sasquatch, yet are found within the sasquatch community. I suppose it may go for the true skeptic as well, although in my opinion a true skeptic who is aware of the available evidence will be leaning towards the existence of sasquatch. As I said, the sighting reports alone constitute good evidence.

 

A species cannot be introduced based on circumstantial evidence alone. We know this. But the way I look at things, scientific proof of existence, and non-scientific proof of existence, are two different things. Just because science does not have enough evidence to say sasquatch is real does not mean that is the case. But, like in a court of law, eyewitness testimony is paramount. Sure, having the murder weapon, and other physical evidence basically can prove something one way or the other, but it is not always needed. So in my opinion there should be this sort of courtroom science among the community. This is not to say we should dismiss scientific proof, but rather accept the fact that scientific proof will not be forthcoming until a greater effort is undertaken by the scientific community. If one looks at the amount of work put into other related avenues of science, and then looks at what has been done regarding proving the existence of bigfoot, it will be clearly seen that virtually no effort has been undertaken.

 

What has been tried is the same tired methodology that obviously does not work. It is quite logical that if an animal like this could go so long without being discovered, the normal tactics used by scientists to discover other species is not going to work. The whole reason I have gone off on this tangent is to attempt to lay out what I think the differences are between the thoughts of a believer, and the thoughts of a disbeliever. It is my opinion that some of what others view as a problem, I view as a logical occurrence based on the nature of these animals, who are obviously different in some fundamental way when it comes to the traits necessary to remain hidden from man. 

 

If a concerted effort was made, and I am talking about an effort that is larger than has ever been seen when hunting for any normal animal, success would not even be guaranteed. Think about this for a moment. What is the sasquatch population? Let's just say that it is 10,000 individuals spread across North America. Now, if we dressed the majority of those people up in brown colored clothing, some in black, a small percentage in white, and maybe some redder colors as well, and sent those 10,000 people across the woods of North America, to live off nature...let's assume it could be done. How often would those people be seen, IF they were tasked with avoiding humans? Hardly ever. It would be so easy for 10,000 individuals to avoid society and humans if they were mainly concentrated in the wooded areas of North America. Some would be seen, but I do not think there would be all that many sightings.

 

Think about how much area that is per individual. A lot. My point is that when you have an intelligent animal, and not just an instinctual animal like a deer, it will be much easier for them to avoid other intelligent animals. And sasquatch have a leg up on humans when it comes to living in the woods. They wouldn't need human intelligence to dominate their environment, and they wouldn't need it either to avoid us in their own environment. But IF they do have it, it will just make discovering them that much more difficult. The vast majority of sightings are NOT purposeful. It is not like the sasquatch willingly exposed itself to a person. It does happen I'm sure, but the vast majority of sighting reports involve a happenstance or chance sighting, with the sasquatch minding its own business.

 

So we are seeing them going about their business. So when they hear, see, or smell a human in the area, and they are going about their business, how difficult is it for them to go about their business elsewhere? What could they possibly have to gain by exposing themselves to any human? Instinctively they would probably avoid us, and intelligently as well. Therefore in the hunt for these animals, we are at a disadvantage. I think much of their success in eluding us has to do with their lack of trust towards ANYTHING that is not natural to their environment.

 

It may seem that I have gotten way off track with this post, and I suppose I agree. However, I am trying to illustrate to the skeptics and disbelievers that things would have played out in this same way if sasquatch exist. They think that sasquatch would have been discovered by now, but that is not necessarily the case. There is just too little effort on the part of science, and what effort there is, is put into the wrong areas. The traipsing through the woods thing will only work if one gets lucky. Camera traps are, as I already said, unnatural, and sasquatch probably do not trust unnatural things. There is actually a precedent for this in the sighting record.

 

Anyway, I do think that both sides should attempt to come together, but I have a feeling that there are those on both sides who do not WANT to understand the position of the others. I can understand sort of why a skeptic thinks what they think, because of course one thinks that if something is real, there will be evidence for it. But, not only is there evidence for it, there are reasonable and logical explanations for the lack of certain types of evidence. And I am coming from a position of knowing, as are many others on this board. Therefore since I know sasquatch is a real animal, I also know that there MUST be an explanation for why we do not have certain types of evidence. And it is true that disbelievers, mockers, and in some instances skeptics are responsible, slightly, for our lack of evidence. This is because there is great evidence out there, but it has not been released to the public. But why would someone want to release such great evidence to those who have already made up their minds?

 

Even with great video evidence, there are going to be those people who think it MUST be fake because sasquatch does not exist. The truth is however that it could be authentic, because sasquatch DOES exist. 100%. So not only is there myself, but there are many other individuals, some on this board, who would say without a doubt that what they saw was a sasquatch. There is no room for error in many of these judgements either. It may be one of those things you have to see to believe, but it shouldn't be.

[Guest]

 

I was going to make this comment on another thread, but the more I wrote, the more it seemed to apply to a lot of threads here, so I gave it it's own life.  ~ OD

 

 

 

So, another thread with the usual back and forth comments trying to toss a zinger at the last poster or two.  Has anyone ever come to the conclusion that working in conjunction with each other, you know, believer and skeptic, that what we all want will come out in the end?  The believers and the skeptics both only want the truth.  Instead of taking shots at each other to try and bolster your own position, working through what is offered as evidence may produce more results.  

 

Offered respectfully, thanks for your time  ~  OD

Impossible.

The skeptic is skeptical for very good reason, the hard evidence where this animal is concerned is poor at best.

There are skeptics on this forum who simply would not believe that these animals existed if one came up and tapped them on the shoulder and proceeded to roar in they're faces, they would say it was a gust of wind and thunder then go and buy some glasses as they would think their eyes were failing.

Believers, I think, have a touch of romance in them in general, those without having any kind of encounter anyway.

That and they believe in humans a lot more than a skeptic would, and believe in those databases and the thousands of eyewitness sightings as they're fully aware th at North America is a very viable habitat for these animals and based on the laws of probability, at least one of those thousands of sightings would be the real deal then that's it, their belief would be correct.

Neither of these two people are ever gonna find mutual ground as their stances are at completely different ends of the subject in question.

Then of course there are the witnesses.

 

That is simply not true, and a bold face lie...at best.  Who would deny a reality right in their face?  Certainly not me.  I, like most skeptics, welcome a bigfoot, alas there is nothing out there, but please keep smearing us skeptics, as it please's you sire.

[BobbyO]

That is simply not true, and a bold face lie...at best. Who would deny a reality right in their face? Certainly not me. I, like most skeptics, welcome a bigfoot, alas there is nothing out there, but please keep smearing us skeptics, as it please's you sire.

Sorry, are you actually speaking on behalf of every skeptic on here or just for yourself ?

If it's just yourself, please apologise for calling me a liar just because you specifically would welcome Sasquatch

Thanks.

Not all would be so welcoming if, after years of saying one thing, would then be proved to be totally wrong.

People are not good at being totally wrong, especially people with ego's of the size that some skeptics have on here.

As a regular on this forum, I'm sure you could name the same skeptics who I'm describing if pushed, like I could.

Edited July 5, 2013 by BobbyO

[Guest]

I apologize for coming off as crass bobby.  I've been a fan of yours from BFF 1.0.  I just get a little tired of the "skeptics don't want a bigfoot" talk.  I believe I speak for most skeptics when I say, I would LOVE for a bigfoot to be dragged out of the woods today.  Just ain't gonna happen.