Bigfoot For Dummies

[roguefooter]

 

IMO The most annoying assertions on here over and over (and over and over), saying:  oh, you can explain all the sightings by

 

[pick one of the following eyewitness maladies:  nuttiness; plaincraziness; or eyewitness testimony is bad evidence.]

 

Every explanation the skeptics toss at the wall can be handily circ-filed by anyone who has read those reports.  Anyone who is telling me that all of them add up to a false positive needs to give me an explanation for that stance that won't make me laugh.  No one has done that yet.

 

 

Geez, give it a rest already. Constantly pushing your anti-skeptic campaign isn't going to make your views any more right.

[NCBFr]

In my opinion the best answer is to forget about reading and go on a hike or camping trip with friends in an area seldom used by people.  The second best answer is is to read about experiences first hand of other folks that have done it as recommended by DWA:

 

 

There is a certain amount of heavy lifting involved here, if one wants to avoid sounding like the knee-jerkers who do, indeed, ask the same stuff over and over...and never listen to the answers.

 

 

• 
  

...and, finally, and I know I'll hear about this:

 

• All of the reports on the BFRO; NAWAC; and John Green databases.  Right.  All of them.
• 
  

 

[dmaker]

Plus to UPs for even suggesting that one weigh the skeptical argument along with the proponent literature. Being honest, and this is no shocker to anyone here I am sure, I would have to say that immersing oneself in the witness reports runs the risk of creating a confirmation bias upfront that might be hard to shake later on. It's human nature to be impressed by a volume of anecdotal evidence. History will certainly bear that claim out. But I believe a better approach would be to read what is available that approaches this from a scientific angle first. That will still be very proponent heavy as there is admittedly little published from those that do not support the claim for Sasquatch. Very few that do not buy into the Bigfoot hypothesis publish anything. There is not a great market for books whose main point is to say that something does not exist. But there are some if you look. Bigfoot Exposed comes to mind as does the most recent Abominable Science. I'm not saying they are definitive or any such thing , nor am I looking to spark an argument about the merits of those publications. They have been discussed elsewhere here. I am simply saying that, while opponents of the Bigfoot claim publish less than enthusiasts, there are some that are available. 

 

 

And note: my first recommendation was a proponent book.

Edited September 19, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

Geez, give it a rest already. Constantly pushing your anti-skeptic campaign isn't going to make your views any more right.

But didn't you hear? DWA is a skeptic, and neutral on Sasquatch. He said so.  And then goes on to say that Patty is real. Which seems to me to be pretty incongruous. 

 

I mean statements like those below, confirming ones belief that Patty is real do not seem like something that someone who is a professed skeptic and neutral on Bigfoot would say. How can you be neutral and skeptical, yet pronounce that Patty is real?

 

 I find it difficult to understand how a claim to skepticism,  in the face of a very clear anti-skeptic campaign here, aligns with a displayed belief in the genuineness of Patty:

 

 

"At least I had a reason:  I have an interest in animals that's up there with anybody's.  And Patty looks like an animal to me and always has."

 

"If a video convinced scientists, OK, I'd want to see that video too.  But it would likely be enough for me with or without the DNA.  I mean, Patty is.  To me."

 

It just seems to me that if someone wants to tell others what they should or should not post, one should be consistent in their claims to skepticism at least. 

 

 

Sorry for the derail. 

Edited September 19, 2013 by dmaker

[roguefooter]

YouTube has a ton of great documentaries:

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bigfoot+documentary

[Guest andy1867]

There is a certain amount of heavy lifting involved here, if one wants to avoid sounding like the knee-jerkers who do, indeed, ask the same stuff over and over...and never listen to the answers.

 

Here is my reading list, and I consider this minimum for anyone who wants to be decently informed on this topic:

 

• Meldrum's Sasquatch:  Legend Meets Science;
• Bindernagel's North America's Great Ape and The Discovery of the Sasquatch;
• Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch;

...and, finally, and I know I'll hear about this:

 

• All of the reports on the BFRO; NAWAC; and John Green databases.  Right.  All of them.

IMO The most annoying assertions on here over and over (and over and over), saying:  oh, you can explain all the sightings by

 

[pick one of the following eyewitness maladies:  nuttiness; plaincraziness; or eyewitness testimony is bad evidence.]

 

Every explanation the skeptics toss at the wall can be handily circ-filed by anyone who has read those reports.  Anyone who is telling me that all of them add up to a false positive needs to give me an explanation for that stance that won't make me laugh.  No one has done that yet.

 

So maybe what I'm saying is:  if you haven't read those reports...keep your opinion of the eyewitness testimony to yourself and we will get along fine.

 

Maybe you can tell I have had a rough day.

Thanks for the reply...

I'm not in the habit of making knee jerk assumptions about people or what they may or may not have seen before hearing or reading their side of the story.

I find the sheer weight of sightings the most compelling substance in the whole mystery, but I will read the documentation and I will form my own conclusions...

Whether we ......."get along fine" after that...well its not a problem mate, its the internet and hardly leaves any bruises I don't take anything to heart on here.

I started the thread to mostly avoid that sort of thing anyway, to be pointed in the right direction on the forum itself, and on the subject in general .

I didn't start it to call some lad from Ohio a crazy liar from half a world away , where the most dangerous animal is next doors dog, but you don't have to live in British Columbia to be interested in the thing...and thats all I am

Thanks for the help anyhow

Andy

[Guest thermalman]

I would recommend reading the many hundreds of stories in our SIGHTINGS section! We could actually organize a very good book just of the members here and their observations and experiences!

KB

Great idea KB!

[BobbyO]

Thanks for the reply...

I'm not in the habit of making knee jerk assumptions about people or what they may or may not have seen before hearing or reading their side of the story.

I find the sheer weight of sightings the most compelling substance in the whole mystery, but I will read the documentation and I will form my own conclusions...

Whether we ......."get along fine" after that...well its not a problem mate, its the internet and hardly leaves any bruises I don't take anything to heart on here.

I started the thread to mostly avoid that sort of thing anyway, to be pointed in the right direction on the forum itself, and on the subject in general .

I didn't start it to call some lad from Ohio a crazy liar from half a world away , where the most dangerous animal is next doors dog, but you don't have to live in British Columbia to be interested in the thing...and thats all I am

Thanks for the help anyhow

Andy

Welcome my English Brother..

[Sunflower]

Maybe this should be called "Dummies for Bigfoot"..............

 

They are the experts in the woods, they know you are there long before you realize it, they heard your car door shut, they saw you way before you knew it and sometimes they even erase their footprints.

[Guest andy1867]

Maybe this should be called "Dummies for Bigfoot"..............

 

They are the experts in the woods, they know you are there long before you realize it, they heard your car door shut, they saw you way before you knew it and sometimes they even erase their footprints.

Very worrying Sunflower...didn't know so many of 'em worked at the Foundry lol

[Guest andy1867]

My advice would be to go here and start reading.

 

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/

Thanks Rockape...Ive started with the classics...what happened to Fred Beck between chapter 1 and chapter 3....found the first chapter enthralling...found the 3rd a bit outlandish to be honest

[Rockape]

So if you don't mind, and by all means feel free to tell me to bugger off, or the more polite, simply point me in the right direction..

 

Some of the best advice you have received so far is from dmaker (in between his trolling of DWA) and that is to not dismiss the skeptical point of view.

 

However, let me explain something here, there are skeptics and there are scofftics. dmaker is a scofftic, he dismisses the possibility of bigfoot existing altogether. I myself am a skeptic, I believe it is possible bigfoot exists and find some evidence compelling. So there is a difference.

 

To arrive at your own conclusions on whether or not bigfoot exists you'll just have to do your homework. Some stories will seem believable and some will not. That is up to you to decide.

 

So keep an open mind but don't fall into the trap of thinking every bump in the night is a bigfoot or that you have to believe every story.

Thanks Rockape...Ive started with the classics...what happened to Fred Beck between chapter 1 and chapter 3....found the first chapter enthralling...found the 3rd a bit outlandish to be honest

 

Looks like you posted this as I was making my last one, so I could have saved myself the trouble as it appears you are taking these with the appropriate skepticism. That will serve you well as you sort through the numerous stories and eyewitness accounts.

[Guest andy1867]

Some of the best advice you have received so far is from dmaker (in between his trolling of DWA) and that is to not dismiss the skeptical point of view.

 

However, let me explain something here, there are skeptics and there are scofftics. dmaker is a scofftic, he dismisses the possibility of bigfoot existing altogether. I myself am a skeptic, I believe it is possible bigfoot exists and find some evidence compelling. So there is a difference.

 

To arrive at your own conclusions on whether or not bigfoot exists you'll just have to do your homework. Some stories will seem believable and some will not. That is up to you to decide.

 

So keep an open mind but don't fall into the trap of thinking every bump in the night is a bigfoot or that you have to believe every story.

 

Looks like you posted this as I was making my last one, so I could have saved myself the trouble as it appears you are taking these with the appropriate skepticism. That will serve you well as you sort through the numerous stories and eyewitness accounts.

I'm totally open minded on the subject Rockape, although if i'm honest, as I said before the sheer weight of eye witness testimony lends me to believe there is something unexplained in these remote regions.

I don't go with the theory of interdimensional stuff, spaceships or whatever, simply because if that had a basis, surely they would be appearing all over the place.

When I read the stories of folks that KNOW what a bear looks like and behaves, KNOW the sounds of the wilderness at night etc etc..I have to give it some creedence.

I'm sure there must be elements of misidentification, but there is also a plethora of evidence from people that have lived in these settings all their lives, and if they say theres some substance in it, in my honest opinion...you have to listen

Cheers

Andy

Edited September 19, 2013 by andy1867

[Rockape]

Sounds like you and I are pretty much on the same page then Andy. I agree with all you say. There is something to all this, I'm just not sure what. I hold out hope that bigfoot will soon be proven to exist if for no other reason than it would be the coolest freaking thing ever!

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

Ya I can understand how it may be aggravating to some to see the same questions over and over again, but personally it has not been that bad for me on these forums in that regard, although occasionally I do see some of those types of questions. I will still answer them, even if I had answered them in the past, as it doesn't bother me. But the truth is that sometimes the information that was discussed is in a thread that will not come up in a search. I know I post information that has little to do with the thread at hand all the time, although it is usually bigfoot related, and even related to the thread topic in some way.

 

And there is more than one way to search for things, and depending on the phrases used, someone may not be able to find what they're looking for. Some people are also just better than others at internet stuff. You should see my grandma try to search for the simplest things, as it sure is something to see if you are in the need for some amusement. People like this are usually a bit older. I can understand that not growing up with computers and the internet is going to translate into less computer literacy, as trying to learn something like this later in life is not as easy as it is when much younger. Anyway, moving on...

 

Personally I do not think ANY book or documentary does the subject justice. In fact, I am constantly perturbed by the bigfoot related shows on television, even the documentaries, because they always fail to address all the issues, and not only that, they always fail to present all the available arguments for the subjects they do address. They need to have skeptics and believers both, and basically go back and forth to some degree. The extent of this type of debate on these shows is that they may present an argument, and then something that passes for a counter-argument, leaving out very important information in between. This is very bad when considering that the majority of the public receive their information on bigfoot from shows like this. And also from Finding Bigfoot type shows, which I do not like either. But, to tell the truth, I can completely understand why they are doing what they're doing on that show. Are they likely to capture good evidence that way? Probably not, unless luck is on their side at on a particular expedition. The lack of luck, and mainly the nature of sasquatch, coupled with the research methods themselves, these types of expeditions are usually going to fail.

 

I have mentioned before that I've toyed with the idea of putting together an ebook or something on sasquatch, and then just putting it up for free download. I've envisioned it as a lengthy treatise, as that is what is needed. I've done this before on quite unrelated subjects, my lengthiest ebook running into the dozens of thousands of words, but it took me some months. The main reason I haven't done this, despite wanting to, is that frankly I don't know where to start. There would be so many things that would need to be included that just thinking about it is daunting. I've thought about just writing pieces here and there, and then putting them together, but SOOO many topics related to bigfoot run into one another. For instance, talking about why they tend towards certain behaviors is always going to be related to some other aspect of their nature or behavior, and this makes it a nightmare for someone trying to write a comprehensive manuscript. Maybe for a "real" writer it would not be so bad, lol. I do have loose leaf sheets of paper with "chapters" on them, as once I did attempt such a feat...Yet I ran into the same problem described above. I found it virtually impossible to break up the information into sections or chapters, simply because I needed to address one thing to explain another. Maybe THAT is why there hasn't been such a comprehensive treatise written up to now.

 

But you are absolutely correct that there NEEDS to be such a thing, because there are probably quite a few individuals in the same position that you find yourself in. Usually that is the case; for the one person who actually presents something, there are many more who would agree, yet simply failed to make their idea known. 

 

If I remember correctly, one of the best sources of information that I have read came from the articles on the BFRO website. I remember them being relatively in depth and informative in that they presented certain aspects of sasquatch in a clear manner, yet still contained quite a bit of the modern ideas. Yet even those lacked a great deal of information. But if I were to write such a guide, I would likely do what I always do, and drag out certain arguments in various directions, attempting to take them to their conclusions. So aside from presenting the widespread beliefs on the various sasquatch related topics, I would try to present ALL the possibilities that could prove to be correct. 

 

It is a good idea though, to have a place where people can ask newbie questions, but here is the problem...Internet message boards, at least in my opinion, are notoriously bad places for "organized" information sharing like you are asking about. Sure it is a great way to present information on a specific topic, but when it comes to running page after page after page, simply trying to navigate a thread to find certain information is a real pain. This is why I have always stayed away from threads like those on the Ketchum report, which runs into the hundreds of pages. If one hasn't followed the arguments page by page, as they accumulated, it would take forever to catch up.