Food For Thought - Skeptics And Believers

[roguefooter]

^Yeah but even a photo of a shadow can reveal that it's just a shadow, so right there you could conclude that it was most likely just a misidentification.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I cannot help myself in jumping into the "fairy argument." There very well might be people who claim to have seen fairies. But I can guarantee that there are many more sasquatch sightings than fairy sightings, first of all. And that is not even the most important thing. The most important thing is the physical evidence. When fairies start leaving tracks over a swathe of land as large as North America, then I might actually stop to consider that they are real creatures. And there is even MORE evidence than tracks and eyewitness sightings to suggest sasquatch is real. 

 

And one of these types of evidence is exactly what the OP is referring to...Photographs and video. I have made the same argument that is presented in this thread, although the OP actually went out and performed an experiment. I commend you for that, very much so. You have shown exactly what I have said in the past...The majority of consumer grade cameras are meant to shoot from a fairly close distance. When one attempts to photograph something beyond a certain distance, depending on the camera, the thing that you were trying to take a picture of is going to appear blurry or out of focus, or basically not very clear. And like the OP said, these were relatively ideal conditions.

 

We have collectively added to our beliefs/knowledge of sasquatch based on all the evidence that we have, and most of us do not view a piece of evidence that doesn't have some counterparts to be absolute truth. But when there are many pieces of evidence suggesting the same thing, one can only assume they are on the right track. So as we have added to our knowledge, we have concluded that the majority of encounters are brief. I think it is also a fair assumption that the vast majority of witnesses, if they have a camera at all, will not have it out and ready to snap a picture at a moment's notice. 

 

So putting those two pieces of information together, it becomes quite clear that in most instances there will not be enough time to even take a photograph. Not to mention all of the other factors that can come into play, including bewilderment on the part of the witness, foliage in the way, etc...

 

So it is not as if the sketpics' or disbelievers' arguments are fact, or are unanswerable. There very well are logical and believable hypotheses for every single statement made against the existence of sasquatch. Not to mention that these explanations tend to compound upon one another, providing a clear behavioral picture. If the explanations were wildly different from one another, or were contradictory, I could understand why someone would conclude that the explanations are very unlikely to be accurate, but this is not the case.

 

I have done relatively extensive write-ups regarding not only the lack of visual evidence, but the low quality of visual evidence in the past, as have many on these forums. And I believe that many of us tend to agree with what I have stated above. 

 

It irks me that people tell believers to go out and collect visual evidence, and when they do collect it, it is immediately dismissed on the grounds that it cannot be proven to be real. NO picture can be proven to be real, therefore nobody should make the claim that there is no visual evidence. I feel that this is a pretty strong argument to tell you the truth. If there were a way to KNOW that a piece of footage or a photograph were real, then the argument would fall apart, but this is not the case. Look at the Patterson-Gimlin footage. It has YET to be proven to be a hoax beyond a reasonable doubt. One can make the claim that Bob. H. said he wore the suit, but anyone can make that claim, therefore we must analyze what they say, among other things. In doing so we quickly realize that this man made many contradictory statements, things that immediately call into question the veracity of his claims. They are definitely NOT airtight, therefore one cannot say his claims are accurate to the point of proving the PGF is a hoax.

 

Therefore I feel that believers and researchers, or anyone who wishes to collect bigfoot evidence, is starting in a catch-22 of sorts. They think they should go out and collect visual evidence, as that will "shut up the detractors." But the truth is that any visual evidence will be inconclusive. So one can understand why I get tired of hearing the argument that there is no visual evidence.

 

There is a ton of visual evidence on Youtube alone. Some of them are probably real, and some probably fake. But how can one use the argument that the creature is too blurry to tell if its real? What if it was clearer? Would a skeptic really say that the video is real because the creature is clearer or less blurry? NO WAY.

[Guest]

Unlike BF sightings, I am sure there would be some psychological dysfunction in many of the 'fairy' sightings, or at least a common belief system or profile. - I mean, c'mon. Are Leprechauns  included? (This does not include Scandinavians who may have a cultural mythology of this). There is no common cultural thread in America except probably European ancestry. Fairy people are probably going to be white, new-age types.

 

BF sightings are usually country bumpkins, land owners, home owners, lots of "responsible common people" . People who live in rural areas, hikers. There is not going to be one defining psychological thread. 

[roguefooter]

I cannot help myself in jumping into the "fairy argument." There very well might be people who claim to have seen fairies. But I can guarantee that there are many more sasquatch sightings than fairy sightings, first of all. And that is not even the most important thing. The most important thing is the physical evidence. When fairies start leaving tracks over a swathe of land as large as North America, then I might actually stop to consider that they are real creatures. And there is even MORE evidence than tracks and eyewitness sightings to suggest sasquatch is real.

Well sure the evidence makes all the difference versus the testimony, which was my point. But you can't say that the testimony on that board is anymore credible than the testimony here.

These people are having encounters and they sound sincere- but how? Well apparently if your beliefs are strong enough you'll find ways to make an encounter happen. All you have to do is find ways to justify it by creating evidence out of natural things- in this case orbs are really fairies, rainbow colored sand is really fairy dust, etc. Read through it and you'll see they've established a lot of lore for the subject.

I see the same thing happen here with Bigfoot- tree knocks are Bigfoot, something thrown is Bigfoot, broken branches are Bigfoot, owl hoots and coyote howls are really Bigfoot. What was that noise in the bushes? It was Bigfoot of course. The list goes on and on. This is why testimony alone doesn't really mean squat- belief is a powerful thing.

Now blobsquatches may seem pointless, but they do help to rule out some things. Take a look at the thermal footage that was captured recently- even though they were blobsquatches they still managed to pull a lot of useful information out of that footage like height estimations, and ruling out they were animals, etc.

Edited August 17, 2013 by roguefooter

[Guest Llawgoch]

So your point is you can take crappy photos of deer?  That was never in doubt.  The real point is there are very many very good photos of deer.  And none of Bigfoot.

[Guest]

 I have made the same argument that is presented in this thread, although the OP actually went out and performed an experiment. I commend you for that, very much so. 

 

Thanks Jiggy. It seems like you either get thoughtful readers who actually read, not skim, or you get completely lambasted in this forum for no good reason. I forgot why I do not take part in forum culture anymore. I joined here because this is a subject I truly am deeply interested in, its unfortunate there are so many critical (not saying skeptical, skeptics are a VERY important function in any scientific community) but overly critical and mean spirited people out there. I went out and tried to prove a point. I plan to continue my research despite all the negativity presented by the digital minions, sheesh. 

 

So your point is you can take crappy photos of deer?  That was never in doubt.  The real point is there are very many very good photos of deer.  And none of Bigfoot.

 

As seen here, so the real point is you didn't actually take the time to read my post, You just looked at the crappy pictures of deer. 

[Guest Llawgoch]

 

 

As seen here, so the real point is you didn't actually take the time to read my post, You just looked at the crappy pictures of deer. 

 

 

 

 Nope.  All your post is relevant to is why there are some eye witness accounts of Bigfoot without corroborating evidence.  What you are not showing is why there are no eye witness accounts of Bigfoot with corroborating evidence.  Which is the issue.

 

It's about numbers, not specifics.

[Guest DWA]

Well, I think anyone contrasting the NAWAC and BFRO databases with the fairy database would see the obvious differences.

 

How many scientists vouch for fairies?

 

Point of this thread:  Don't expect a photo of a bigfoot from anyone who isn't doing what Patterson did:  entering the field prepared to document, with a camera ready to go on the instant when the opportunity happened.

See thats the problem. You are useing biased theroies as excuses. Thats my problem. Not really the pics (yes I do know how hard it is to take good and fast pictures) but that everything is based on a bunch of people making claims and then attributing behaviour to those sightings. Im skeptical not because of the lack of proof but because of how nothing is vetted and everything is taken as fact on face value and word of mouth alone.

That's the fault of the people [not] doing the vetting, isn't it?

 

Some of us look down our noses at 99.9% of this field as crap - and believe that the evidence points clearly to the animal's reality. 

 

We just don't blame its nonexistence on the people looking for it (and the people who fail to do proper vetting).

Honestly if Bigfoot were that intelligent then why would their existence be so minimal and inferior to humans, to where they have to hide from them in order to survive? That doesn't sound like superior intelligence to me.

Um, not sure population size is an intelligence indicator.  Ours is gonna kill us.

[Guest]

Unlike BF sightings, I am sure there would be some psychological dysfunction in many of the 'fairy' sightings

hold on a second...

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/32184-the-psychic-sasquatch/

[Guest Rex]

I just wanna know if someone can put some red circles around the deer so I can see them..

 

 

ETA:

 

N/M...  I found them..

Edited August 28, 2013 by Rex

[Guest LarryP]

Honestly if Bigfoot were that intelligent then why would their existence be so minimal and inferior to humans, to where they have to hide from them in order to survive? That doesn't sound like superior intelligence to me.

 

Tell that to all of the millions of humans that have been killed by other humans in just the past 50 years.

[roguefooter]

^How do you propose that I tell them, Larry? I don't think they'll get the message.

Edited August 29, 2013 by roguefooter

[roguefooter]

Um, not sure population size is an intelligence indicator.  Ours is gonna kill us.

 

Our intelligence has allowed our species to thrive beyond control. It's allowed us to live longer lives, increased our overall safety, quality of life, fertility, etc. We've gotten to the point where we have the ability to ensure our species' survival.

 

Some will say that living like a primitive man is more 'intelligent' than modern living, or that a small isolated population is smarter than a large dense one. Rock and stick war versus nuclear war, etc. Those are more ethical debates than anything. 

[Guest LarryP]

^How do you propose that I tell them, Larry? I don't think they'll get the message.

 

 I'm fairly sure that you know that was a figure of speech. But the point is still quite valid.

 

With that in mind,  it's obvious that they are not "minimal and inferior" by comparison to humans.

 

Our intelligence has allowed our species to thrive beyond control.

 

 

 

That's a bit of an oxymoron.

 

We've gotten to the point where we have the ability to ensure our species' survival.

 

 

 

Thriving beyond control does not equate to ensuring our survival as a species.

[Guest DWA]

 I'm fairly sure that you know that was a figure of speech. But the point is still quite valid.

 

With that in mind,  it's obvious that they are not "minimal and inferior" by comparison to humans.

 

 

That's a bit of an oxymoron.

 

 

Thriving beyond control does not equate to ensuring our survival as a species.

Yep, "out of control" doesn't seem to be a thing the intelligent brag about.