Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[dmaker]

And will you please stop vilifying anyone who simply offers an alternative explanation for a sighting that does not involve a Bigfoot? Seriously! 

 

Anyone got a mirror?

So, asking if someone has some evidence to support their claim is vilifying them?  Would you prefer if everyone just linked hands, shared some made-up Bigfoot stories, and then discussed how awesome their stories are? Because any attempt to seek substantiation for any claim here is constantly met with push back, especially from you. 

[WSA]

I dunno either MIB. It find it a very curious  approach to a mysterious subject like this.... an attitude that would seem to guarantee you won't be getting any really valuable information.

 

This is what I mean when I say this forum is a resource that is routinely squandered.  You might say it promotes an equality of ideas and information, but diminishes the quality and quantity of them at the same time. It is a noble ambition, but it kills the very thing we might better promote. It ignores the simple truth that people will not bother to share information if they have to constantly be on their guard when they do. This is not just any subject, after all. When the most often repeated rebuttals (actual or implied) to evidence are the person is deluded, prevaricating or just plain wasting everyone's important time, well....they just won't bother. Those who do that can hide behind their shields of "extraordinary evidence" all they care to, but it is a wall that stifles the free exchange of evidence. Maybe that is not the goal of the Forum...to promote that exchange, but rather to just provide a cage space for people to rip at each other's view of the world ad nauseum. Seems like an even bigger waste of resources, if that is the deliberate purpose. Must be a very tedious thing to constantly police that too.  I am just a visitor here, and I don't wish to speak ill of my host, but I think it does bear noting.  Always hard to strike a balance in matters like this, so I'm aware of the obstacles to doing it differently. My point is mainly to promote more intentional thought in how this evidence is greeted.    

ummm if you really want flies... vinegar actually works better

You know, you are right about that. This comparison does need updating.  

[dmaker]

After looking closely at this evidence/no-evidence false binary equation for a long while, my conclusion is that challenging every person who comes forward to "put-up or shut-up" only accomplishes one result. Namely, the evidence goes underground, and those who shout the loudest for proof get less and less information. It fulfills itself.  As harsh as it may be for some here to consider, there is a large group (and getting larger) who have no interest in sharing their information with someone who only wishes to point out how deluded they are. Just a fact. In my line of work I've seen hundreds of cocky lawyers think the way to draw out information in a deposition is to let the witness know how disdainful you are of what they are telling you. Instead, they should be doing everything but that. Flies & honey v. flies & vinegar. You tell me what works best.

 

So, if your interest is in drawing out more evidence, coming on strong with the ol' extraordinary evidence bromide isn't going to advance the field one little bit, or get you that. The transparent attempts to claim even neutrality on this topic fool nobody, I can assure you. Those that operate in this fashion might want to ask themselves, "What am I really trying to accomplish?" If you are more interested in appearing clever to a bunch of anonymous strangers, well, crack down on it. But, if you want to see what other evidence there might be, you might want to reconsider your approach.  

It's hard to push something underground if it doesn't exist.  Asking for something to verify a claim gets one labelled as a bully or dogmatic skeptic. Claiming that merely asking for evidence pushes that evidence underground is myth feeding.  What it actually does is show the inherent problem with anecdotal evidence. It is subjective. So great. You say you saw a Bigfoot. Do you have anything to verify that?  Bully! Scoftic!  ( sigh) Give me a break. It is a valid question. If one "goes underground" at the mere whisper of a request to provide some thing to support one's claim, then guess what? It's not the question that is the problem, it's the lack of evidence for the claim. But sure, paint the question as the problem. That is a typical thing that happens in Bigfooting.   

 

Whoever said I was neutral on this topic?

[Guest]

There's a lot of black and white thinking in all matters from elements of that camp. They won't admit possible things are possible when it appears to "whiten the grey" some for the big fella.

 

Gets annoying trying to separate thoughtful criticism of evidence, from the "definitely a hoax" and ridicule of it from the oft unstated "they're not real, period" viewpoint.

It's just as annoying as the believers who can not admit that there are any problems in the subject of bigfoot.  I'm personally on the skeptical side of this issue but I recognize that there is a lot I cannot explain.  There are things in the PGF film that I do not have a good explanation for.  

[WSA]

So, asking if someone has some evidence to support their claim is vilifying them?  Would you prefer if everyone just linked hands, shared some made-up Bigfoot stories, and then discussed how awesome their stories are? Because any attempt to seek substantiation for any claim here is constantly met with push back, especially from you.

Case in point....asking somebody who posts their evidence to give you their evidence? See the problem there? You want them to give them YOUR proof, not THEIR evidence, which they already have done. Go somewhere else and look for that, would be my advice.

 

Dmaker, as I already suggested, you might want to reconsider what you are trying to accomplish, and if what you are doing brings that goal any closer.  If your goal is to show the world you can reflexively push back at any evidence and stifle those who would bring more of it to you...well then, if it is, you are winning.

Edited October 2, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

"Case in point....asking somebody who posts their evidence to give you their evidence? See the problem there? You want them to give them YOUR proof, not THEIR evidence, which they already have done. Go somewhere else and look for that, would be my advice." WSA

 

This is very simple. Someone makes a claim. Some people will go ooh and ahhh and soak up the details. Others may say, that's cool, do you have any supporting evidence like pictures or something? The answer to that is invariably no, and you're a bully for asking. I don't consider BF stories to be evidence of much of anything other than someone claims a subjective experience. Do you feel that Bigfoot evidence should start and end with stories?  Is that what you are after?  Does that satisfy you personally? If so, great. But it certainly will not advance this topic any further than campfire tales.  You would think you would want follow-up evidence. You claim a desire for proper investigation of this "mystery". Well sitting around and sifting through Bigfoot stories are not going to do it my friend. Why you push back on that boggles my mind. You would think a desire for a better quality of evidence here would be a shared goal. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

So if someone provides a blobsquatch that looks more like a bear (or a bird, or, or, or....), or a recording that sounds remarkably like a coyote (or a bird, or, or, or....), or shares a video stating that they didn't realize the blobsquatch was there until they got home, even though they say in the video "there he is, we are not alone" - me asking additional questions should be frowned upon?   I've seen all three of these scenarios right here, some multiple times.

 

I sit on the fence on this topic.  I have not seen one with my own eyes.  I have seen a strange series of tree breaks - but I'm not ready to say it was BF.  I find some of the evidence compelling, some I don't.  I came here to learn more, and I do that by asking questions.  Yet when I ask questions now I am the one who gets vilified - so I left for a while, came back, asked a few questions and got the same result.  So now I ask very few questions, which really defeats why I came here, but I still get to read some cool stories about a subject I am interested in. 

 

Proponents should be asking to most questions and vetting the most data IMO, not chasing off the people who are.

[Guest]

Dmaker and nod hit the nail on the head.  I was or maybe still am pretty close to just packing it in and leaving the site.  I had the same experience of hostility for differing opinions from some of the members here (small but vocal minority). 

[WSA]

Like I said, again...it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Only you can say,and if you are succeeding. If your goal is to be the ever-vigilant evidence police for the world, that is one goal. If your goal is to promote a climate where people feel comfortable sharing their evidence with you, that is another. Just recognize these two goals are often in opposition here. It would be extremely difficult to get both here.   

[Incorrigible1]

Let me quote from BFF:

 

Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

[Guest]

Let me quote from BFF:

 

Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative.

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a “Bigfoot House†and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not “The Anti-Bigfoot Forumâ€.

I took what WSA said, his response, to mean this:  go ahead and ask questions, but don't be surprised when those claiming to have evidence lock down, decline to answer and refuse to share in the future.  Which is well within the rules of the forum - it is their claim and their evidence after all, unvetted as it is. 

 

I do, however, think it goes against the purpose and intentions of this forum - especially the middle paragraph above.  That of course is my humble opinion - I will now recede to the shadows and lurk once again.

[WSA]

Incorrigible, granted and confirmed. BUT, is it worthwhile to ask if this free-for-all of evidence and challenge to the evidence gets you more, or less progress towards an understanding of what is really happening? You obviously think it gets you more, and I obviously disagree with that idea. I think the results are pretty clearly favoring my take on the matter.  

 

As I said, this is not just any subject we are talking about. Some who show up here I believe are genuinely freaked-out by what they've experienced. It takes very little to put that kind of person in full retreat. Yeah, you are well within your rights to do that, but in the end, really, what have you accomplished? Is that the only thing you want here? A rhetorical question I ask myself when I read some of the posts.    

Edited October 2, 2013 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

So if someone provides a blobsquatch that looks more like a bear (or a bird, or, or, or....), or a recording that sounds remarkably like a coyote (or a bird, or, or, or....), or shares a video stating that they didn't realize the blobsquatch was there until they got home, even though they say in the video "there he is, we are not alone" - me asking additional questions should be frowned upon?   I've seen all three of these scenarios right here, some multiple times.

 

I sit on the fence on this topic.  I have not seen one with my own eyes.  I have seen a strange series of tree breaks - but I'm not ready to say it was BF.  I find some of the evidence compelling, some I don't.  I came here to learn more, and I do that by asking questions.  Yet when I ask questions now I am the one who gets vilified - so I left for a while, came back, asked a few questions and got the same result.  So now I ask very few questions, which really defeats why I came here, but I still get to read some cool stories about a subject I am interested in. 

 

Proponents should be asking to most questions and vetting the most data IMO, not chasing off the people who are.

If people are tossing me "proof" that isn't proof, I'm going to tell them that and you should too.

 

There are and will probably continue to be a number of people who Know, who rub that in everybody's face, who claim they have proof when either they don't or it sure would help their credibility a lot to show it, etc.  There will always be people who claim they know precisely what it is, but their evidence doesn't convince me (e.g., the "it's-human" contingent).  I'll tell them where we disagree.

 

Then there are those who, from everything I have seen, come here to talk things like habituation, ESP, they're-human etc. with like-minded people.  As long as they don't drift too far into the above paragraph, I defend their right to do that.  When they do drift, I'll tell them where we disagree.  But I sure won't go on and on and on and on and

on and on and on and on and etc. about it.  All the time providing nothing to make a reasonable person understand my viewpoint.

 

There will continue to be (I hope) folks like NAWAC, who are saving what-it-is for confirmation, but talk about what they are doing in the hopes that it will benefit others trying to find that out.

 

There will continue to be (I hope) folks like BFRO.  On a number of things ("Not Finding Bigfoot") we differ.  But that database is the result of earnest, continent-wide effort; to all appearances is the collective contribution of folks like you and me; and has shaped significantly what I think about this subject.

 

And there will continue to be (I hope) folks like you too.  Earnest questions always have a place here.

After looking closely at this evidence/no-evidence false binary equation for a long while, my conclusion is that challenging every person who comes forward to "put-up or shut-up" only accomplishes one result. Namely, the evidence goes underground, and those who shout the loudest for proof get less and less information. It fulfills itself.  As harsh as it may be for some here to consider, there is a large group (and getting larger) who have no interest in sharing their information with someone who only wishes to point out how deluded they are. Just a fact. In my line of work I've seen hundreds of cocky lawyers think the way to draw out information in a deposition is to let the witness know how disdainful you are of what they are telling you. Instead, they should be doing everything but that. Flies & honey v. flies & vinegar. You tell me what works best.

 

So, if your interest is in drawing out more evidence, coming on strong with the ol' extraordinary evidence bromide isn't going to advance the field one little bit, or get you that. The transparent attempts to claim even neutrality on this topic fool nobody, I can assure you. Those that operate in this fashion might want to ask themselves, "What am I really trying to accomplish?" If you are more interested in appearing clever to a bunch of anonymous strangers, well, crack down on it. But, if you want to see what other evidence there might be, you might want to reconsider your approach.  

Exactly.

 

The mainstream's take on this stems, precisely, from how little information they have - a position that owes not a little to how little they seek information, and in fact owes much to how assiduously they chase information away.

 

The most anyone can say about any evidence, short of proof, that does not show clear signs of human engineering is...inconclusive.  And one might be best to leave it at that...or not even to say it, as most of us here know it already.

 

I think sometimes that the bigfoot skeptic's primary goal is to get the proponent to acknowledge that it isn't proven yet ...which is just about the only universally accepted truth in the field.

[dmaker]

" But that database is the result of earnest, continent-wide effort; to all appearances is the collective contribution of folks like you and me; and has shaped significantly what I think about this subject." -DWA

 

^^ This. This is my largest issue with Footery. A database, vetted by Bigfoot advocates? A collection of subjective experiences, second or third hand, some quite a bit of time after the alleged sighting even took place. This is what you think should significantly shape what anyone should think about this subject?  Enough stories already. This constant desire to want to elevate them to an unwarranted level of scientific value is one of the major things wrong with this whole topic. If this is the best the field has to offer then sure have a great time swapping tales, but don't expect too much mainstream scientific excitement if the best you got is a bunch of Bigfoot stories vetted by Bigfoot believers. It truly is no wonder this is not taken as seriously as some would want. Particularly when you add in the all the side shows like Ketchum, Erickson, Dyer, Daisy, and all the Youtube hoaxers..  The pieces do not add up to a very compelling whole in my opinion. 

[chelefoot]

I was preparing almost the exact post when yours came up, Inc.

 

I would also add...

 

 

About the BFF - Is it right for you?

The BFF is an independent forum dedicated to the discussion of the Bigfoot phenomenon.

 

The CFZ (including the BFF) has no official stance on any single aspect of the Bigfoot debate. The CFZ does not 'believe' that Bigfoot exists, or 'believe' that it does not exist, but that the evidence makes it worthy of discussion and further investigation. The members and Moderators may take a different view. That is entirely up to the individuals concerned.

From here.

(My bolding)