hiflier Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Hello dmaker, Aw shucks, you're no fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 True. And one should ask, yet again, what pathology drives such people to a forum about a subject for which they have no interest in studying objectively. On the bright side, I suppose it prevents them from being arrested for attempting to club misidentified seals. That's uncalled for JDL. I don't believe I've read a single response from any of the skeptics that would make them look deranged or vicious or otherwise rotten. Many skeptics on this forum are still quite interested in the subject even if we do not share your conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Actual physical remains would trump all other claims. A single finger bone has convinced modern science of the existence of Denisova. To those that smugly claim absolute proof, I say "Heh!" Until any such physical proof is proffered, any claims are laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Hello Incorrigible1, Shall we toss in a jawbone and a pile of molars for Gigantopithicus into the mix while we're at it? Edited April 30, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) I found the last installment of Bigfoot North interesting in regards to the tracker Halfpenny, who has worked with Meldrum. He had a standing offer to examine any track way found or reported to Grover Krantz, and that offer continues with Meldrum. Meldrum referred to the London Trackway as problematic in regards to offering an expert tracker evidence. Halfpenny mentioned that in his experience the evidence supporting such a creature is so sparse as to be almost non existent. If you trust his expert opinion then you have to adjust you perspective on the type of evidence that Sasquatch are going to leave. I mean they do not leave tracks in any observable way in many cases, even when sighted. It is an enormous mystery how so many sightings can occur without tangible physical evidence, so misidentification seems logical..... Until you notice the absolute consistency in the reports, both in appearance and behavior of the creatures. This is so apparent that we could reconstruct everything we know about Sasquatch from strictly looking at the reports. If there is wide spread misidentification then it is uncanny how consistent the accounts are. So what gives? I think the notion that Sasquatch is a local creature for one. From the lack of observable evidence in many areas it is logical that this creature stays on the move, leaving little trace of its habits, and not staying put long enough in most cases to leave enough trace. The sightings may betray the lack of numbers, by that I mean it may seem like more creatures exist, but in actuality less exist and they are on the move and thus occasionally are sighted, but this is more due to need to move from area to area. I guess they do not worry about being sighted as much as leaving tangible evidence such as track ways. Everyone tries to pin down areas that hold squatch and it seems to fail, it is more logical in my opinion to view them as extremely transient creatures moving about almost constantly. Edited April 30, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted April 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 30, 2014 Green made the observation that sightings by male witnesses were of longer duration than female witnesses. So that was what caught my attention. Do we have a theory as to why that would be true, especially as it might intersect with your theory of BF as striclty a social construct? Seems a legitimate question to ask, don't you think? Maybe for the same reason little boys are more prone to serious injury than little girls. We're just too stupid to know when it's time to retreat. "I've seen enough" isn't in our vocabulary. Instead we come up with things like "hold my beer, you gotta see THIS". It should be obvious that the longer we don't run, the longer our sighting lasts .. right? MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I have looked at it objectively. There is not enough hard evidence to support the bigfoot hypothesis. If bigfoot were real and people were honestly considering what that meant, objectively, then my opinion is that they would arrive at the same conclusion as I have--bigfoot is a social construct, not a real animal. Obviously many will disagree with me, and that is totally fine. I can accept that people will not arrive at the same conclusion given the same information. I refuse, however, to pretend that bigfoot may be real and running around North America just so that people of your opinion will consider me "objective". Ok by me. See below. That's uncalled for JDL. I don't believe I've read a single response from any of the skeptics that would make them look deranged or vicious or otherwise rotten. Many skeptics on this forum are still quite interested in the subject even if we do not share your conclusions. Expressions of personal opinion don't bother me in the least. Constant bludgeoning does, whether the source is skeptic or believer. At this point I generally don't feel a need to convince anyone of anything, but every once in a while I get the sense that newer members may feel suppressed by voluble and committed denialists, This is when I do feel a need to throw out an occasional countervailing thought. Particularly when I read statements that belittle people's experiences. Give and take is good. Suppression or attempted domination is not. And, for the record, I often see statements from what you call believers that I consider unsupportable based on my encounters and experience. And you may notice that I'll occasionally comment on those. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 ^^^^^ I have felt the same way as JDL stated above when reading some posts here. There gets to be a vibe that repels discussion of experiences or encounters and that you will be taken to task via circular questioning that leads back to ,, it is crazy to think sasquatch because sasquatch lacks this or that ,,. I should mention that it may not be as noticeable to those who can't relate due to a lack of an experience or encounter, it is an underlying tone in discussion with a regular pattern that is discouraging for some who wish to share. I can honestly say that I have spoken with several people here privately who wish to share information but will not due so publicly for this reason. They did not come to post something interesting to receive a debate or argument, they wish to network, share information and theorize all to learn about anything bigfoot. So many of these threads boil down to an existence or evidence argument rather than what ever the topic was originally aimed at. There really should be a debate area here on the forums to channel this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 In the western world, there are thousands of reports of "little people" from Ireland, yet no remains. Should science place great store in tales of leprechauns? Maybe our resident report reader could read hundreds or thousands of those reports and declare the creature scientifically proven, too. That's a false analogy Santa Claus argument. There are also lots of reports of giant cryptid birds in the western world. How do you feel about those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 ^^^^^ I have felt the same way as JDL stated above when reading some posts here. There gets to be a vibe that repels discussion of experiences or encounters and that you will be taken to task via circular questioning that leads back to ,, it is crazy to think sasquatch because sasquatch lacks this or that ,,. I should mention that it may not be as noticeable to those who can't relate due to a lack of an experience or encounter, it is an underlying tone in discussion with a regular pattern that is discouraging for some who wish to share. I can honestly say that I have spoken with several people here privately who wish to share information but will not due so publicly for this reason. They did not come to post something interesting to receive a debate or argument, they wish to network, share information and theorize all to learn about anything bigfoot. So many of these threads boil down to an existence or evidence argument rather than what ever the topic was originally aimed at. There really should be a debate area here on the forums to channel this. I understand what you're saying and that is why I stay out of threads, for the most part, that do not invite skeptical opinion. This thread, for example, is called misidentification. That is a thread where I think my skeptical comments will be on topic, so I will participate. Other threads, for example, "Uncle Hairy" would be a thread where I would have nothing valuable to contribute, so I stay far away. I do not think it is too much to ask that skeptics be allowed to challenge evidence and theories if it is still basically on topic for that thread. I don't hop from thread to thread spewing an agenda at every opportunity. But if the thread discusses evidence or by it's nature ( misidentification for example) invites comments from multiple viewpoints, then I don't see anything wrong with it. If I stuck my nose in every hab thread, or urban bigfoot thread, or psychic sasquatch, or dogman, etc thread just to say " bigfoot is not real" then I think I would be very busy, very frustrated and would have created a justified animosity. As it stands now, I think skeptics should have a few places to voice their opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Hello dmaker, Honest question here: Is "skeptic" a term that truly applies to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 True. And one should ask, yet again, what pathology drives such people to a forum about a subject for which they have no interest in studying objectively. On the bright side, I suppose it prevents them from being arrested for attempting to club misidentified seals. I really don't think 'objective' means what you think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 These types of discussion are entirely healthy for the forum. Not my fault or problem that the evidence can't hold up to a beating now and then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Hello dmaker, Honest question here: Is "skeptic" a term that truly applies to you? No. I've tried to highlight occasionally that I use the term skeptic because that is what most people use here to denote anyone who is neither proponent or believer. I don't believe that bigfoot exists, nor do I reserve even the slightest chance that bigfoot might exist. I am personally convinced that bigfoot is a myth. A fascinating social construct. So that would make me a denialist I suppose. It's not that I think bigfoot to be a biological impossibility. It's not a chimera or a griffon. It's just that if this massive, bipedal ape truly existed here in the numbers and behavior that people claim, then there would be plenty of hard evidence, instead of zero. We would have "discovered" bigfoot when we explored and settled this continent. Native tribes would have artifacts and relics. There would be remains, fossils, etc. The lack of any physical evidence that can be used to prove the case tells me that bigfoot does not exist. I use the term skeptic in my posts usually because I find scofftic to be deliberately derogatory. Just like I don't use the term "bleever" either. Edited April 30, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted April 30, 2014 Moderator Share Posted April 30, 2014 ^^ Thanks for your candor. I find that your viewpoint is quite reasonable. The challenge I have for you is to consider that your definition of 'evidence' might have some problems. For example, a footprint is evidence and there are a few footprints that have been found by persons on this forum that bear consideration. A lot has to do with provenience as BF prints look a lot like human, and it does not help that there are hoaxers out there muddying the waters. But a footprint is still evidence that something passed by. If it cannot be explained by hoax or human then the question becomes what else could have made the track? IOW I think you are being somehow overly strict with your definition of 'evidence'. I think you will find that as humans, we all exist as reason and meaning -making machines, such that we often have made-up stories about things in life and life itself. What I am pointing out here is that it appears to me that you have a made-up story about what constitutes 'evidence'; IOW it exists only out of your definition and no other. I am not asking you to change it BTW, just try on the idea that your definition excludes actual real examples of evidence. If you can do this, does your conclusion that BF does not exist still seem safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts