Guest Darrell Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 If so many of you are done with this why are you still here? . Check out post #181 for my reasons why I still visit this train wreck of absuridty. This forum does give me some comic relief from my otherwise stressfull day dealing with the relality of the real world. I thought I encounterd a lot of fruits, nuts, and flakes in law enforcement and martial arts but this place takes the prize!!! Its really very entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 How or why is anyone here questioning how or why anyone else is here? Seems extremely disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Maybe we should be more skeptical of people and their interpretation of the situation both pro and con. If bigfoot exists, he exists without our opinions affecting his species' existence one way or the other. This. +1 I'm a skeptical proponent, myself. If the truly skeptical are willing to admit that there's a possibility the creature could exist, no matter how remote, I can see that as reasonable. Conversely, the same goes for the proponents - If you're willing to admit there's a possibility that it's all a big mirage, you're well-grounded, as well. As of now, the skeptics have the lack of proof on their side. You have to admit that. Check out post #181 for my reasons why I still visit this train wreck of absuridty. This forum does give me some comic relief from my otherwise stressfull day dealing with the relality of the real world. I thought I encounterd a lot of fruits, nuts, and flakes in law enforcement and martial arts but this place takes the prize!!! Its really very entertaining. Thanks for adding to the collection, and for entertaining us, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MNskeptic Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 I'm finding more and more that the human behavior surrounding the bigfoot phenomenon is as fascinating as the creature itself. What's interesting here is how many folks on this board are absolutely certain this thing does not exist. I'm not complaining because non-believers keep things real, but a part of me can't understand why someone would spend their time on a bigfoot forum when they aren't open to the possibility of existence?? I'm not interested in auto racing or pro wrestling or cooking and have never even looked for a website much less participated in a forum conversation. Fascinating to me... MNSkeptic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Hey Kit, thanks for the plus. What three pieces of evidence to do I see as the most important? I would have to say the Skookum body cast. For me, this ranks above most others because several actual scientists have studied the cast in a relatively controlled environment. The group consisted of Dr.Meldrum, Dr. Krantz, Dr. Bindernagel, Canadian Wildlife Journalist John Green, and Dr. Ron Brown. In a press release after they examined the cast, they all agreed that it cannot be attributed to any commonly known Northwest animal and may represent an unknown primate. Now of course this does not definitively prove the existence of a species of North American ape, the cast constitutes significant and compelling new evidence that will hopefully provide the impetus for further serious research and investigation into the presence of these primates in the Northwest mountains and elsewhere. Unfortunately, aside from being 14 years old, the Skookum cast could not be any clearer as to what it is. It literally screams elk lay. While Grover was alive, he said to reporter Bruce Barcott of Outside magazine "I don't know what it is. I'm baffled. Elk. Sasquatch. That's the choice." Have a look here, Wingman. Once you know what you're looking at, it's hard to believe that anyone could have ever considered it something other than an elk lay. You can see the hind leg clear as day, the front legs, hoof prints... http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48716-primate-arm-found/page-8#entry861639 The tracks and castings would come in at 2nd place. Not all casts though, I refer only to the ones that are shown to be anatomically correct and other features which would be difficult to hoax. For me, footprints/casts fall into the trace evidence category when attributed to Sasquatch, but it in no way equates to proof. What specific tracks do you think has features that would be difficult to hoax? When I was still a fence-sitter one thing I looked for far and wide was a single case of consecutive tracks cast with matching dermatoglyphics. At the time I thought that would go a long way in supporting the authenticity of those tracks. I no longer think that as I think it's something that can be hoaxed, but it does not matter because no such casts exist and every case of alleged dermatoglyphics has been shown to be attributable to casting artifacts or misinterpretation. The 3rd piece of evidence are those oh so wonderful hair samples. I know there has been much discussion on this subject over the years, and have been found to be mostly other known animals that inhabit the areas they were found in. The only instance that I can see that may have some possibility are the hair samples that Dr.Fahrenbach, who is a Biomedical Research Scientist in Oregon found within the Skookum cast. Now based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.†Again, not tangible proof as far as proving existence.Unfortunately all of this still inconclusive, and will obviously remain that way until there is something that the evidence can be compared to. The level of confidence I have concerning these 3 pieces of evidence is just high enough to spur me forward and keep looking. I have no ill conceived time table for discovery, it will happen when it happens. I do not feel that they need our intervention for anything, and at times I find myself leaning towards having the position of just leaving them alone. I found out long ago to let intuition be my guide, and my intuition has been a pretty good guide so far. I think back to what an old friend of mine used to say - "Be careful what you look for, you just may find it" There has never been a single verified case of a hair sample that has come out as unknown primate. Everything to date which has given results has either been human or known animal. I was once a very ardent proponent of Bigfoot existing. I came to skepticism because I finally came to the realization that reliable evidence for Bigfoot does not exist. If you feel there is compelling evidence, all the power to you, but the Skookum cast, tracks and casts to date, and claims of Bigfoot hair are definitely not it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted October 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2014 Skepticism is not objectivity. However, many proponents do have a more subjective viewpoint. I have to trust that what I experienced was real, as I had none of the typical circumstances that are traditionally blamed for altering perception. The question really is about when you can trust your own senses. As an example, Bill Munns has an excellent analysis showing why its unlikely that Patty is a suit, but to really understand it, you actually have to view it. Here's the YT link, its about 13 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9-UXLy2hY8 When you view it, at some point you have to question what is your perception. Do you see it the same way he does? To date I have yet to see any skeptical analysis that has any of the veracity of this YT video. But guaranteed, any 'skeptic' will dismiss it, even though they can't get out there and do better. IMO an objective person, if still skeptical, has some serious homework to do to show where the analysis is misleading. This is the difference between skepticism and objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I'm a skeptical proponent, myself. If the truly skeptical are willing to admit that there's a possibility the creature could exist, no matter how remote, I can see that as reasonable. Conversely, the same goes for the proponents - If you're willing to admit there's a possibility that it's all a big mirage, you're well-grounded, as well. As of now, the skeptics have the lack of proof on their side. You have to admit that. But it's not the end of the world and bigfoot is still possible. Proponents and skeptics will both celebrate if a sample is brought in tomorrow. There's more investigation happening, scientists are interested and actively studying the subject. Samples are being submitted for testing. There are scientists here on BFF, some are even actively conducting research. (Check out H. V. Hart who should be getting 10x the amount of attention that Dr. Ketchum received!) There have been numerous threads where scientists here have even tried to help researchers, some have went better than others. Calling them skeptical dummies probably won't help but they are here if you want their opinion. A skeptical viewpoint isn't evil or the end of bigfoot. A question from a skeptic doesn't have to be taken as a personal attack. It's just a different way of looking at the problem and skeptical scientists will have to be involved for bigfoot to be accepted by the world at large. Instead of just wishing they will go away or calling them names look to the skeptical scientists who are actually working in the field for examples. If you truly admire the scientists working in the field emulate them - apply the same filters they use. Here's what you will find out - all reports are not equal. Dr. Sykes didn't test every hair ever collected after a sighting report. He didn't even test all the hairs sent in - he vetted the samples. That's science, it's skeptical, it's normal. There would be no reason to test a 28" bleached blond hair with blue highlights, cut ends and a pink ribbon tied to it for bigfoot DNA. He has limited time and resources so he whittles down his testing to those samples he feels are the best candidates. Dr. Disotell doesn't test every sample collected and Dr. Fahrenbach and Dr. Meldrum don't cast or even consider every footprint. They all have protocols they use to determine what they will study. No one had to ask them to skeptically vet their evidence, they did it voluntarily and ensured their protocols were followed. They don't hide their findings, they publish and argue with their peers. That's science, that's skepticism - it's normal and should be emulated rather than ranted about. Some of the best threads here contain heated debates between skeptics and proponents. Look at the PGF threads and see where the give and take produces new ideas and work that has revealed more than before. I think it inspired Bill Munns to complete all the work he's done on the PGF. It's obvious that most of the skeptics here are very interested and take the subject seriously. My point isn't to try to convince anyone that bigfoot is an impossibility. I don't believe that. My point is that skeptics are necessary and a good thing to have here on the forums. If you want the coin to start coming up heads something has to change. Believing that all reports are true and that all researchers are honest won't cut it. It's not working. The scientists doing the research, the ones we all admire and whose work we look forward to can be as skeptical as anyone here and they are only interested in physical evidence. They aren't trying to prove existence through similarities in sighting reports - they aren't even considering it. They are not debating each other based on who read the most reports. They aren't blaming science and skeptics here for not investigating bigfoot - they are busy conducting studies and writing papers about their investigations into bigfoot. Weird huh? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman1 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 If so many of you are done with this why are you still here? The disbelievers arguments against existence will never change a witnesses mind on what they experienced. Your arguments will always be the same but with each passing day, more and more people become witnesses. It is a tide that arguments against cannot stop. While "Finding Bigfoot" has not found anything, it sure has made people step forward and make witness reports. Sooner or later some Senator or other high Government official will have an encounter and start asking questions. What does the Government know? If the Government does not know, why not? I don't agree with Wingman that there is no hurry. We have no idea if the BF population is stable or in rapid decline. For the sake of science I would rather BF existence be accepted when there is a living population to study than find a skeleton or fossil 100 years after they go extinct. For me the biggest mysteries are not that they exist but how they live, how they survive, do they migrate, how well they see in the dark, are they on the human evolutionary tree, how they use infrasound, and how they can avoid human contact so well? Most of these things requires a living population to determine. A fossil or skeleton will not tell much. That is certainly the dilemma we face. Like you say, no one has the slightest idea of what the population numbers. Even after a body is secured by whatever means, it will not change much of anything other than proving the existence of BF. The BF are not going to suddenly abandon their reasons and methods for avoiding human contact to let us observe them in the wild. That is just not going to happen. It may even become much more difficult if groups of researchers and scientists foray into the wilderness. They will probably not take our intrusion very lightly. This kind of activity will leave them with two choices - "Fight or Flight". They may become much more confrontational than before, and for me personally, I have no desire to find out just how much more confrontational they will become. On the other side of the coin, they may just move deeper and farther into the forests where many people will not venture. I just wouldn't put too much hope of ever being able to study them in their natural habitat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingman1 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Wingman - I can certainly understand your frustration but realize that you are looking at the same field as the skeptics are but in a different light. It's obvious that you understand and value the contributions that science can and has made to the field. I admire the contributions made as well and I would ask you to consider the matter from a skeptical standpoint to see how much we agree rather than how much we differ. We are conducting experiments at this point. We're already past the point of proposing a hypothesis. We have evidence collected and studied for some experiments but others are at a standstill for lack of evidence. For example, Dr. Sykes was able to test his hypothesis with samples sent in from around the world. Dr. Disotell has tested scat and mosquitoes collected by researchers for DNA. Dr. Fahrenbach and Dr. Meldrum have proposed hypotheses but have been unable to test due to lack of evidence. It doesn't mean that their ideas lack credence but it becomes increasingly apparent that something has to change in order to complete their experiments or they will wind up at a dead end. At this point in time all the hypotheses tested have resulted in dead ends or negative findings for both amateur and professional endeavors. I think all of us, skeptics and proponents, if we are honest can agree that this is where we are - science has and is seriously looking into the matter with the help of scores of volunteers and field researchers but can't make a definitive finding at this time due to lack of evidence. Bigfoot is possible but unproven. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of where the field stands for both proponents and skeptics? This is where the sides begin to differ, proponents continue to treat sighting reports as equally likely to be true and equally likely to produce testable evidence with obvious outliers that aren't included. Skeptics differ, they consider each report to be less likely to be true and less likely to produce evidence but should be willing to consider outliers that break the pattern. Would you agree? Who's right? Statistically it's the skeptics at this point. Why? Consider each sighting report as the toss of a coin with heads being a positive result scientifically and tails being a negative result. So far no report has ever resulted in a positive result - all the tosses have come up tails. It never becomes technically impossible for this to be random but statistically there is no way it can be random. The more sightings or tosses the more certain we can be that it's not random and the more certain we can be that the next toss will be tails as well. There has to be a reason - maybe the coin is unbalanced (the reports aren't equal) or we use a tossing machine that flips the coin exactly the same each time and we always place the coin heads up (collection protocols or lack thereof). We probably all have different opinions of what the problems are but we shouldn't be arguing that there isn't a problem in considering sighting reports equal and pointing to them as a road map to success when every road they've led us down so far has failed or been a dead end. If you admire the scientists involved at least consider how they approach problems and consider using their methods. At a dead end in research? Go over your work with a critical eye looking for flaws, change protocols, consider different experiments that could test your hypothesis. Do anything but continue to conduct business as usual and you are successfully applying the scientific method no matter what result your experiment brings. Thanks for your reply Ohiobill, I'm not really frustrated and as I stated in my post, I have no problem with honest, constructive skepticism. It is an important part of the process and keeps us from going off the deep end. There are many skeptical folks here (including you) whose opinions I respect and welcome. It is the Skoftics that I don't really care for. I just don't see them bringing anything to the table. I agree with you as to where the BF community stands today. I enjoy reading your posts and I do agree with you that we are at or very close to being at a deadend. As I stated, for me the reports are nothing more than a starting point. Now I definitely realize that their are bogus reports out there, and In 45 yrs of being a BF enthusiast I know that one cannot believe every report is accurate. I give the folks that report their sightings the benefit of the doubt first before I whip out my skeptical spy glasses. For me I read the reports to look for certain things that I feel are important after coming to a conclusion that the report does not ring all of the BS bells. If my criteria is met, then I have a starting point. You are correct that sightings reports are not the road map for success. They can only be something from which data can be pulled to point us in a direction to start searching. I tend to use common sense and a skeptical eye when it comes to BF evidence. It is the only way to keep oneself honest! You are dead on about the arguing that goes on here, and will probably never change but I am hopeful though. If I were a betting man, I would have to say that if they are indeed real, they have us figured out to T. It's all about the mystery for me and I have fun soaking up everything BF that I can. When it stops being fun is the day I climb down from the monkey bars! A little pun intended! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted October 17, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2014 As of now, the skeptics have the lack of proof on their side. You have to admit that. PROOF? Admitted. At the same time a skeptical, rather than "scoftical", person would have to admit the proponents have the EVIDENCE on their side. While it is possible to argue logic for non-existence, an argument is not evidence. There is no possible EVIDENCE for non-existence. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Agreed. Proving Bigfoot does not exist is not possible. You can take no bodies, no blood, no scat, no hair, no detritus of any kind conclusively unknown primate in origin, no clear images with any provenance as being indicative of non-existence, but they are not proof. Bigfoot enthusiasts have lots of evidence to look at. So do alien abduction enthusiasts, ghost hunters, Dogman proponents. The problem is that none of it is reliable. The same question for you, MIB. What specifically is the most convincing evidence to you? If tracks, what tracks? If some sort of physical specimen, what specifically? DNA? What DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) ^ I think technology will be what finally proves it doesn't exist, IF in fact it doesn't exist. t. Edited October 17, 2014 by Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitakaze Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Skepticism is not objectivity. However, many proponents do have a more subjective viewpoint. I have to trust that what I experienced was real, as I had none of the typical circumstances that are traditionally blamed for altering perception. The question really is about when you can trust your own senses. As an example, Bill Munns has an excellent analysis showing why its unlikely that Patty is a suit, but to really understand it, you actually have to view it. Here's the YT link, its about 13 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9-UXLy2hY8 When you view it, at some point you have to question what is your perception. Do you see it the same way he does? To date I have yet to see any skeptical analysis that has any of the veracity of this YT video. But guaranteed, any 'skeptic' will dismiss it, even though they can't get out there and do better. IMO an objective person, if still skeptical, has some serious homework to do to show where the analysis is misleading. This is the difference between skepticism and objectivity. 1 - Scaling model to Patty. You know the lens on your model. Do you know the lens on the PGF. No? It matters. Why? This is why... 2 - The head doesn't fit? This head fits... http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bighead2.jpg 3 - The head slopes back? In which frame? Take one frame that appears to slope and ignore another at the same angle showing conical? The images are not consistent and not reliable... http://i1137.photobucket.com/albums/n520/DJKitakaze/Bighead4.jpg Bill's entire 13 minute demonstration is compromised by the fact that both the crucial element of the lens are taken as equal when it is in fact unknown. What we can say is that a normal human skeleton can be fit into Patty and articulated across the moving footage... http://s1137.photobucket.com/user/DJKitakaze/media/manglerpgf.mp4.html?sort=3&o=196 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted October 17, 2014 BFF Patron Share Posted October 17, 2014 What is your definition of "reliable" evidence Kit? Something that passes your personal smell test? Just curious. I like analogies because it takes the personal emotions and beliefs out of this BF discovery thing. In a lot of ways the quest for BF is like the hunt for the Higgs Boson. Theoretically it should have existed to explain other subatomic phenomena. Just as something should exist to explain all the supposed BF sightings. But like the Higgs Boson, particle scientists wanted evidence in the form of photographic tracks left by the particle. Years were dedicated at Cern trying to catch the elusive photograph that showed the particle. Finally within the last year a photograph was taken that showed the exclusive photographic track left by the Higgs Boson. We are at that stage with BF. You and others want a body or good photography. So do I. We find footprint evidence, but that is not conclusive because of the similarity with human. Throw in hoaxing and the footprint evidence gets weaker. If a footprint is human size I document it but really don't get excited because I just don't know for sure what I have. The larger ones outside the human norm get me more excited in that it becomes less likely to be human and more likely to be BF. But there could be some NBA player with 18 inch feet that likes to walk in the mud. I admit that is possible. That mid tarsal break thing was supposed to be defining, but studies in Europe have shown that 20 some percent of the humans there have some evidence of a mid tarsal break too. So even that is no longer conclusive in defining a BF footprint. The London track way in Oregon created a lot of excitement in the BF world but the size of the footprints were so into the human norm that even I wonder if it was anything other than human. We cannot be sure. And my experience has shown that both humans and BF avoid walking in the mud because it is simply messy. That makes me wonder about the trackway to begin with. If footprint evidence was defining, then Meldrum would have been declared as providing proof and science would have accepted existence. That has not happened. So we wait the defining photograph or video to get science interested or the body on the lab table to provide species type and DNA proof. I don't even think DNA by itself will be accepted as proof. A body, with chain of custody DNA samples, confirmed by more than one lab will be required. A body was required for science to accept the mountain gorilla, even though it had been seen in the wild previously. It will take that for BF too because of the scientific belief that there are no native primates in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Thanks for your reply Ohiobill, I'm not really frustrated and as I stated in my post, I have no problem with honest, constructive skepticism. It is an important part of the process and keeps us from going off the deep end. There are many skeptical folks here (including you) whose opinions I respect and welcome. It is the Skoftics that I don't really care for. I just don't see them bringing anything to the table. I agree with you as to where the BF community stands today. I enjoy reading your posts and I do agree with you that we are at or very close to being at a deadend. As I stated, for me the reports are nothing more than a starting point. Now I definitely realize that their are bogus reports out there, and In 45 yrs of being a BF enthusiast I know that one cannot believe every report is accurate. I give the folks that report their sightings the benefit of the doubt first before I whip out my skeptical spy glasses. For me I read the reports to look for certain things that I feel are important after coming to a conclusion that the report does not ring all of the BS bells. If my criteria is met, then I have a starting point. You are correct that sightings reports are not the road map for success. They can only be something from which data can be pulled to point us in a direction to start searching. I tend to use common sense and a skeptical eye when it comes to BF evidence. It is the only way to keep oneself honest! You are dead on about the arguing that goes on here, and will probably never change but I am hopeful though. If I were a betting man, I would have to say that if they are indeed real, they have us figured out to T. It's all about the mystery for me and I have fun soaking up everything BF that I can. When it stops being fun is the day I climb down from the monkey bars! A little pun intended!I I totally understand the skoftic thing, there are a few proboneheads (a hopefully original try at an proponent skoftic equivalent) who produce a similar response in me. I think most folks are having to become more skeptical due to the problems with hoaxers and crooked researchers and it's actually a good thing. I appreciate the proponent side in much the same way you do the skeptic side, I learn a lot more even if I don't agree with everything. I don't necessarily agree that we are nearing a dead end or that we have to be anywhere close. From my perspective it looks more like researchers are causing this than anything else. If even a small percentage of the reports we see just here are true there has to be testable evidence. Researchers refusing to share evidence or participate because they have their feelings hurt by skeptical questions here have a rude awakening if they think this place is rough. It appears more like lost opportunities than the end of the line to me. I agree with you about keeping it fun. See you on the monkey bars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts