Martin Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) It's the people with the outlandish claims (more and more on this forum it seems) that I'm skeptical about. There's even a guy who's claiming now that they come to his camp to watch movies! If it wasn't for one or two investigators who are the real deal that I admire I'd say no way. The fact that they think there are bf animals out there keeps my antenna up and my interest peaked. t. What happens when the one or two you admire fall off of the deep end? That's what happened to me. Sooner or later they all seem to get swallowed up in the bigfootery. Skookum Cast and Elbe Trackway are 2 recent examples. Edited October 14, 2014 by Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Skeptic or believer, Sinner or Saint, it matters not. You will believe what you do based on your faith in the phenomena. I have lost my faith in the phenomena, so I am skeptical. Produce the creature and skeptisism disapates. Dont produce the creature and it abounds. Dont look at the skeptic as the enemy of your belief, look at yourself. Did someone just shout 'Got Monkey'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Crowlogic...so, if I follow you here (and not sure if I do)...because the evidence (I didn't say proof) has not yielded any definitive answers after being sat upon for decades this is an argument for what, exactly? More of the same? And this was to serve the purpose of keeping the myth alive, if I do follow you? What I meant by sweeping proof under the rug was that proponents use this to defend their position that BF exists but the authorities squelch the proof. Bigfoot exists but there is a conspiracy against us knowing the truth. So because of this I'll just go right on believing regardless. It requires too many dance steps to believe at this point in time. Reality does not require conspiracies and fear of disclosure to function. It makes for entertaining pastime fuming over the darn govt cover up as opposed to grasping the core that Bigfoot isn't out there. Crowlogic, still trying to puzzle out your views here, and they strike me as pretty circular, if I do say so. Consider what you are saying (I think). You say there is no need to do any kind of serious thinking about who reports BF evidence, because some who have made reports of that kind could be liars, and somehow, the shunting aside of that evidence has perpetuated the myth? If I'm not understanding you, please tell me. If I am, it would seem that the way to debunk the myth would be to give these reports serious investigation to see if they stand up, not wave your hand at them so as to make them go away. The large majority of those who are reporting sightings have not shown any propensity to lay claims to having "proof", but merely want somebody to help explain what they witnessed. I too am looking for that reasoned explanation. Seems like a sensible expectation to me. For me a half century of witness to the issue inclines me to dismiss the reporter as much as the reportage. Each and every report is a non starter. Each and every report has netted nothing of substance. Reports are fun but at the end of the day we have no Bigfoot. This is why I maintain that the issue of Bigfoot is actually an issue of people and the things they perpetuate. After my half century of witness the reportage's have gotten more clever and some downright cute but there's nothing to show for it all. And that IMO is about as incriminating against it's reality as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) There is no "half century of witness to the issue." Not on your part, anyway. The evidence stands unaddressed, and that is all there is to it. Someone has decided what someone wants to think; closed and locked the windows; and bolted the doors. Not the best way to figure something out. But isn't that, to revert to the OP, "the deal with skeptics." Edited October 15, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Evidence can be tested, not addressed. What evidence do you assert remains untested? You may think there is still something to figure out, many of us do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Crowlogic....looks like your done then. So......? Edited October 15, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Hello All, My increasing skepticism ironically stems from deeper research. In my investigations I found out that a widely known, strong proponent, researcher, and organizer wasn't telling the truth about a personal encounter. My questions primarily were why the deception and who else knew? I haven't really pushed the issue much but it left a sour taste in my mouth as I think the knowledge of the ruse is deeper and wider than it first appears. I still won't push on this much as every time I do someone pushes back telling me to let it go. Yep, sour taste. There should be truth and apologies in what I found but........it just ain't gonna happen folks. Sour. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 hiflier - Sounds like a good thread in the premium section... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 There is no "half century of witness to the issue." Not on your part, anyway. The evidence stands unaddressed, and that is all there is to it. Someone has decided what someone wants to think; closed and locked the windows; and bolted the doors. Not the best way to figure something out. But isn't that, to revert to the OP, "the deal with skeptics." Correction the evidence as presented has been addressed. I read every scrap of evidence and viewed every scrap of available pictorial evidence that was out there at any given time. After adding it all up from the early days and combining it with the current evidence trends I've concluded that it's hollow and at times an outright con game. Thus far my conclusions are holding up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Hello Crowlogic, Even though I may not have been all that explicit I will say that one of my feet is planted further inside your camp. Not exactly saying no to existence POSSIBILITIES but not as encouraged to think so as before. @ ohiobill, I just may try that. I would invite you especially to attend for reasons you will better understand when you get there. I'll PM you first. Edited October 15, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 hiflier, I'd like to read that thread as well if you start it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Part of the demise of belief is social media. BF on YouTube has almost become an industry and forums draw a lot of nuts as we sometimes see here. You can't blame the skeptics and it's getting more difficult for those who are the real deal to get their stories accepted with some semblance of belief. I sure hope there is such a creature as BF but it's going to take a lot better evidence for guys like me to believe there is. t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Well, Crowlogic, as WSA says, you're done then. I honestly would have signed off long ago, with that - harrumph - belief not backed by evidence. Improper evaluation of evidence happens all the time. I take Meldrum, Krantz, Bindernagel and the other scientific proponents over you. Based on what I read here: I take WSA and me over you, too. And I take thousands of eyewitnesses who all must be channeling their inner primatologist/ecologist - or, you know, seeing the same thing - over anyone who isn't paying attention to what they are saying. Edited October 15, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) See, I'm down with WSA's circularity thing. There is only one way to get to the bottom of a mystery: find out about it by investigating its manifestations. How many of us would really go for "this could happen, so it must be happening, in every single case, and we're done here" approach to any subject? I mean, really. One can pick and choose one's mysteries, now. (Although bigfoot skeptics - see "fairies and unicorns" - don't exactly seem spectacularly good at it.) Those two in the parentheses: well, show me a scientist who is interested. Centaurs, toss that one in there too. You can probably add to the list. You ever seen one? Ever meet anyone who has? Has anyone you know? Can you point us to a scholarly tome, into which scientific acumen has demonstrably been invested, making the case? How about a conversation with a scientist who is yelling for the mainstream to look over here? You can't, unless you are claiming a historic first. UFOs. Um, that "U" mean anything to you? Do people know what they are? Do we have the tools to find out, yet? (Don't tell me SETI has nothing to do with UFO sightings. They are the major motivation behind it.) There are many things about which we can go, sure, show me something worth taking seriously, and I can give it the time of day. In the meantime, now... When something is leaving forensic evidence; thousands of people who give no reason to doubt them are reporting seeing something that squares well with the forensic evidence; and a film neatly ties both together in the neatest and most logical possible manner that has all but convinced people whose professional training not only could not be more germane but is being rigorously applied...well let's just say that gives those of us who are keeping up not only the right but the obligation to look just a bit down our noses at those who come in with a predetermined bias yelling, this is what it is; I know it and I don't have to offer any evidence (shades of habituators, Martha! Could bigfoot skeptics and habituators be the precise same thing????); and that's the truth. You really think you're getting away with that huh? Well, to you it may be so; and keep on constructing that world. Edited October 15, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, Sorry, but at least ONE of the trusted shiny underpinnings in the realm of Bigfoot sighting claims is tarnished. If you do your research the way you profess to do you would know that. Tell you what, I'll give you a week to find out who the offender is. If you are unsuccessful- or even if you are- PM me and we'll talk. HINT: this has nothing to do with two unmentionable characters that we've already known about. There is an important point I'm making here as I ALWAYS have a point. Let me know how you make out. Edited October 15, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts