Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[Branco]

Incorrigible1: In regard to the forum's view that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Since the birth of this forum has it ever received "extraordinary evidence" to validate or confirm the existence of Bigfoot, or to validate any statement by any forum member in which they claim to have seen one or more Bigfoot? (That does not include film made public prior to the existence of the forum.)

 

DWA: What "proof" has been submitted to you on this forum that you determined was not proof; and how did you make that determination.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Is sasquatch proven yet?

 

That's how.

[chelefoot]

" 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. 

Not compelling to you.

 

Besides, there are boots on the ground at this minute, trying to change that. Trying to bring in more compelling evidence, and even proof. It is a process. It's not going to happen instantly. I, for one, want to hear the stories, the attempts (even failed ones), the things that happen along the way to finally getting that proof - rather than the researcher or whoever it is that finally gets that proof, waiting until they have it in their hands and only then coming out with it.

[dmaker]

^^ Yes, not compelling to me, hence why I added in my opinion at the end of the statement.

"It's not going to happen instantly. I, for one, want to hear the stories, the attempts (even failed ones), the things that happen along the way to finally getting that proof.." chelefoot

 

So an honest question to you: at what point do you ( personally) throw in the towel? Is there a point in all of the ramp up, followed by failure, followed by ramp up, followed by let down, where you just give up and admit that there probably  is not a giant man-ape running around? And that in the face of very little decent evidence to support the claim and years and years of failure to produce the target of the original claim ( i.e. a specimen), that you begin to realize that the stories and the process is all you have and all you are ever going to have when it comes to this topic?   Do you see a moment like that in your future potentially? Or will you be looking for, and hoping to see, this "proof" for the rest of your days? Unswerving in your conviction no matter what?

 

 

Not to be morbid, but how many researchers have gone to their grave in this field having either never laid eyes on a Bigfoot, or have never managed to advance the evidence one scientific inch?  How many of the current crop of Bigfoot friendly phds are enjoying their golden years but have not managed to scientifically offer any proof for Bigfoot throughout their entire careers?  We have a news article recently where funding support for the Falcon Project was so pathetic that Meldrum is interviewed where he suggests charging a fee to view his footprint collection at Vegas casinos.  That is pretty sad I think. I think the world would be a better place if Bigfoot was left at the campfire as a fun tale, not to be taken seriously where it can soak up a life time of a person's energy and time only to pay off nothing at the end.  

Edited October 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

The biggest thing that needs to shift in the scientific mainstream is a problem so glaringly obvious that even laymen decently read on this topic can see it.

 

It's what constitutes evidence compelling scientific attention.  The databases combined with the footprints present a pile of evidence so compellingly consistent it couldn't be more obvious.  That is, to anyone who's actually reading up on this, which would exclude most of the scientific mainstream, even though that is starting to change.

 

Sitting on hands until stuff is proven is not how science works.  Unfortunately, most scientists don't know that, because they never encounter the problem in their daily jobs, which mainly consist of getting a known, adding another known, and deriving what is now another known.  They really have no idea how to get past denial.

 

Which come to think of it is the biggest thing that needs to shift.  Science forbids and abhors denial; yet it is ingrained in the very way scientists think.

 

Case in point: 

 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/01/why-bigfoot-is-unlikely-only-if-you-know-what-unlikely-means/

Edited October 2, 2013 by DWA

[Sunflower]

Not going to happen any time soon.  More and more people have ditched the stigma of talking about such things and are coming forward to say that an intelligent hairy person who can be more than eight feet has been seen near their homes. 

 

I believe my brother and sister when they told me how while coming home from school in the winter time, a very large thick legged hairy person jumped over the hood of their car.  My brother is not a liar, does not nor has he ever done drugs ever, was not hallucinating and was completely sober told me as soon as they burst in the front door.  Two people do not share hallucinations!

 

I have no clue what you want besides the truth, I don't have time to analyze the whys and wherefors of your thinking, I don't really give a crap.  I know the truth, it's good enough for me and some others here.  We are here to discuss the happenings and it just stymies me sometimes the amount of vitriol from you and others.

 

You can't make us stop talking.

[WSA]

I think what drives a lot of the frustration is the idea that somehow typing and reading on even a well managed and extensive forum such as this will bring one to  a point of  having reached personal "proof."  As Branco recently noted, and I think his comment speaks heaps of wisdom, proof is not to be had here, but out in the field if you want it. This is an unsatisfying reality for many. Me, I'm more than content with what it is. Try it.

[dmaker]

@Sunflower, vitriol is defined as bitterly abusive. Could you please point out where I have been bitterly abusive? By pointing out that eye witness reports are just stories by people and cannot be proven one way or another is not abusive. Suggesting alternative explanations for some of those sightings is not bitterly abusive. Asking if someone has something to verify a claim such as photos is not abusive. 

 

Advocates here love to talk about science and how scientific their approach is. Yet when asked to verify a claim and elevate it potentially beyond merely a cool story, they cry abuse. Do you really think that is how science works?  Really?

Edited October 2, 2013 by dmaker

[kbhunter]

The simple facts are this; 1) some will never believe until there is a major news announcement stating there has been a body submitted and science announces they are real. 2) some people that are "researchers" have hurt the entire concept of proving them real through pictures, stories and other "evidence" because most of it is inconclusive.3) Some of us that have experienced them, seen them and know they are real don't really care if they are proven to others. (I fall into this camp) 4) Other people just want to be in the limelight and will do almost anything to get there. This just happens to be the subject they have determined to use for that purpose.

 

There are many of us that fall into the #3 category that share here because there are others that are like minded. With that, I could care less who believes me, but I will respect all other's opinions in that regard. Just because people disagree and want their own proof does not mean they are a bad person. Heck, I would have a beer with any of you here.  As long as the respect is there, hey....it's all good!

KB

[NathanFooter]

Dmaker ,  where as I do not know the answer to be given from the person you asked I do know that for me there is no point where I will crumple and say ,, Nope , not real ,,.    Why is that ?  It is because I have seen a living breathing being that holds the truth right in front of me. 

 

I do not hold a belief in these creatures , I simply KNOW that the species exists.

 

What I do not KNOW is HOW the species survives and THAT is what has me worried.

 

I continue to research not to ,, prove ,, anything to myself,  it is to aid in species recognition, habitat protection and my fascination witch engulfs me.

[Guest DWA]

I think what drives a lot of the frustration is the idea that somehow typing and reading on even a well managed and extensive forum such as this will bring one to  a point of  having reached personal "proof."  As Branco recently noted, and I think his comment speaks heaps of wisdom, proof is not to be had here, but out in the field if you want it. This is an unsatisfying reality for many. Me, I'm more than content with what it is. Try it.

I think that many of us have ground-truthed this for ourselves.  We're steeped in the evidence; we see the plausibility; we've carefully parsed the science, and in truth are past the point of needing personal or societal proof.  That every day we are out there could be the day we see one has become enough for us.

 

(Although yeah part of me is kinda rooting for NAWAC.  Sue me.)

 

And we understand in our bootsoles how unsustainable the argument is that all of this is, oh, you know, just wrong folks being wrong.

 

Whatever this is, it will be sui generis in the entire history of man on this planet.  Those who think it's garden variety human silliness just have not put in the skull sweat or the mileage, that's all.

[dmaker]

I can understand how things can be mistaken for Bigfoot. I was hiking this past Sunday late in the afternoon. It's autumn here now so the shadows get darker in the late afternoon. I am always looking around trying to spot wild life. I have a pretty good track record. If there is a deer, nearby there is a very good chance I will see it. I can spot a turtle i a creek from 100 yards. This is nothing special, I just pay attention because I like to spot wild life and take pictures if I can get closer.  So anyway, I am walking down the trail and glancing off the trail to the left and to the right. Well to the right was a shaded area covered over by evergreens. I noticed some sort of auburn fur and above it one of the coolest colored sets of eyes I have ever seen. Most of the body was covered in shadow so all I really saw was some reddish fur and late afternoon autumn sunlight reflected off what looked like very distinct light brown eyes.  Naturally it got my attention. Seconds later a dog bounded out of the little copse and trotted up to the trail to its, presumably, waiting owners. Now if that spot in the trees had of been higher up due to a log or a rock or something that was also covered in shadow and the dog maybe faded backwards into the brush, I could see how someone might perceive that to be a Bigfoot sighting. Especially if one is primed to see a Bigfoot. As many of you are when you go in the woods I am sure. All I could see, and be certain of, was fur and eye reflection. 

 

My point being that if all I was ever able to see of that encounter remained reddish fur and reflected eyes, I still would not have chalked it up to Bigfoot. The shadows were dark enough that I could not make out any facial features. The dog had red and dark brown-black fur. The face was entirely black fur. So only the eyes and a patch of red fur from lower down the body was all that I could see due to the combination of late autumn sun and shadows. For many, I think, that would be good enough for a Class A bona-fide Bigfoot sighting. But it was just a dog, obscured by shadows and sunlight.  I'm not crazy, nor was I drunk or otherwise impaired, but I still saw something that I could not immediately identify. And, like I said, even if the animal had not of revealed itself, Bigfoot would not have been my choice. And if it was, in this case, and many, many, many others I suspect, I would have been dead wrong.

" I think that many of us have ground-truthed this for ourselves.  We're steeped in the evidence; we see the plausibility; we've carefully parsed the science, and in truth are past the point of needing personal or societal proof. " - DWA

 

( My bold)

 

I am afraid I do not understand you. Just up thread a ways you responded to a question by saying that you were obviously skeptical about Bigfoot. What is obviously skeptical about the above comment?. An obvious skeptic is not past the point of needing proof. How can you be skeptical, yet still admittedly accept Bigfoot without personal or societal proof?  If you accept Bigfoot as real without proof then you are no longer a skeptic Sir and should stop claiming to be.  Your statement very clearly goes beyond accepting the possibility and accepts the reality without proof. That is not a skeptical response. 

Edited October 2, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^I understand, my son.  To each his own.  I just like mine to come leavened with evidence, that's all.

[chelefoot]

 

So an honest question to you: at what point do you ( personally) throw in the towel? Is there a point in all of the ramp up, followed by failure, followed by ramp up, followed by let down, where you just give up and admit that there probably  is not a giant man-ape running around? And that in the face of very little decent evidence to support the claim and years and years of failure to produce the target of the original claim ( i.e. a specimen), that you begin to realize that the stories and the process is all you have and all you are ever going to have when it comes to this topic?   Do you see a moment like that in your future potentially? Or will you be looking for, and hoping to see, this "proof" for the rest of your days? Unswerving in your conviction no matter what?

 

I don't think I will ever throw in the towel. Why? Because of people like NathanFooter and so many others who I have talked with personally who have seen it. Clear daytime sightings in full view.  It's the people who share their experiences with me who have nothing to gain- no reason to lie. I believe them. I don't think they were mistaken or lying or trying to hoax me. I don't require proof from them. I trust them.

 

This is not to say I trust everyone. There was once a lady who was just interested in BF, so she was around a lot. Out of the blue she came on and stated that she was riding along in the car with someone and was looking out the window and lo and behold - there was a bigfoot.  In this particular case, I think it was wishful thinking. But of course, I can't prove that, so I kept my mouth shut and went on to the next topic.

 

I wont feel as if it was all a waste if I never get proof.  I have enjoyed researching this and I have met some amazing people in the process. Why would I regret it?

 

The highs and lows are just part of that process I was talking about. But some people prefer the product over the process. In fact, they talk about that in the psychology books when reading about personality types. I guess it's different for different people.

[Guest DWA]

^{Why throw in the towel when science hasn't even gotten itself focused on the subject matter yet?  That's as odd an idea as I'm gonna hear.}