What's The Deal With Skeptics?

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

I just wouldn't put too much hope of ever being able to study them in their natural habitat.

Yet there are those who are doing just that.  Seeing BF in numbers and interacting with them etc etc.  We can't have it both ways.  We can't accept the so called "secret squirrel " approach of years of habitation not being actually confirmed.  Case in point how many years has it been since Janice Carter began her career in BF habitation?  And what about Creek Freak?  They all evaporate into thin air.  This in not the earmarks of a real phenomenon.   A real phenomenon leaves clues to build on yet there are no clues to build on here.  

Edited October 17, 2014 by Crowlogic

[SWWASAS]

I disagree about withholding evidence. I hold back evidence because I know it is not good enough to be definitive. Why put it out only to be told what you already know, that it is just not good enough. That just feeds the skeptics. I even have a bigfoot picture taken during an encounter but it does not show much. I hope for the opportunity to get a better one. You can be sure that if I get something good enough to quiet the skeptics I will publish it. But at least it proves that it is not impossible to photograph a BF as I have been told by believers of the paranormal BF. I have also been told that if I even carry a camera I will not have contact. Neither are correct, so believers can be wrong in their beliefs too.

[WSA]

Hey there Bill. One point I think doesn't get made often enough, and I think it does explain the frustration of some. There are skeptical people who clearly expect a public outcome in Sasquatch research.  Increasingly though, due to all the factors we all know about, so much of the inquiry has been driven outside of the public domain, and is likely to stay there. I've seen it happen here many times. The skeptic's ability to get at this information will  continue to decrease, and why wouldn't it, given the bellicose demands of some? That is what I meant by my comments about there are plenty of experiments being conducted, and (private) hypotheses being proven.

 

The strident skeptic demands that this evidence be delivered up to them. It is not likely it will be though. You of course are free to discount everything that is not disclosed to you, of course. But, if any who are skeptical are really interested in knowing what is currently being discovered and discussed by these folks, they'd do well to engender some degree of a personal relationship with any one of the more private individuals they might know, either face to face, or in this forum. Showing up to demand they bring forth the body or (in so many words) shut the frick up, will never, ever get you want you say you want.  Those who insist on that approach are telling me they truly are not interested in knowing, just shouting louder than the next guy.

 

In doing that, you've got to hang up your possible fears of being played for a dupe, which is a real handicap in this area. My friendship, attention and ears don't cost me anything to offer, and I can draw my own conclusions from there. Nobody who has proven something to themselves, and who isn't at all interested in the greater goals of science, is going to give you the time of day otherwise.

 

You can ignore this advice if you want, sure. If you do, you'll only assure that your productive involvement in it will continue to decline. That's just the simple reality of it.

[salubrious]

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...

 

 

 

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...

 

 

 

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...

 

Those look like red herrings. Its pretty obvious for starters that Patty is well back from the lens, too far for any of the near-field distortions you used in your example. The mp4 page is blank BTW.

 

This is an excellent example of what I was talking about in my post though- you pretty well proved my point:

 

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.

 

IOW if you have not sorted it out, the bar is set much higher than you have tried to meet.

[MIB]

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? 

 

Personal experience.  Back in the early - mid 70s I found a track line and later had an extended sighting.    Being pre-teen / early-teen in those days, of course I didn't own a camera nor did I have casting supplies so I have nothing from that to share with you.   I could go into lots of details but to you it's probably just a story.   To me, it was final.  There have been a number of other events since that might not have convinced me alone, but since I was already convinced, I suspect were more likely BF than not.  

 

There's consistency among personal reports I've heard from people who don't know each other and the consistency between them and older reports that were not widely known ... I'm 99+ percent convinced the stories are not copycat or plagiarism, and hoax requires the same ... copy-cat hoax or one person doing all the hoaxes ... so I'm left with the strong sense they are genuine.  

 

Beyond that ....

 

1) The PGF.  I've watched it many times and I've watched attempts to reproduce it many times and there's 2 orders of magnitude difference.   I accept it as real.   I'm pretty convinced Paul Freeman's Blue Mountains video is real as well.  

 

2) Tracks ... many show a lot of flex which was not possible, and may still not be today, in fake feet.  

 

3) Statistical appropriateness of data.    height, weight, track size, stride length ... all vary along proper bell curves, they are neither too consistent nor to inconsistent, both individually and in combination.   Hair color consistency and distribution as well.    "Bug eyed monster" reports do not have that consistency.   The known hoaxes and outright lies are not that consistent.    There is something real, not just imagination, behind the bulk of the reports.

 

4) Audio.   Some seems sketchy to me.   Some have reasonable explanations.   But there are some I cannot explain away as elk, coyote, or any other known critter.  

 

You mentioned DNA ... I don't see any particular DNA that I'd hang my hat on as convincing evidence.   DNA strikes me differently ... it piques my curiosity.   I wish we could retest some of the historical samples that were reported at the time as unknown primate, human contamination, or no DNA found.   I'm not jumping down the rabbit hole of drawing conclusions on what we think the samples could have been.    I think we just have to let the lost opportunity motivate us to try harder, more rigorously next time.

 

I wonder sometimes where I'd stand if I didn't have person experience that I can't sweep under the carpet, if all I had was the evidence available to everyone else.   Dunno.

 

MIB

[dmaker]

I will never understand why the consistency in the reports is so impressive to some. What is so difficult about fabricating a story involving a large ape? We're not talking about a mysterious creature with perplexing characteristics or behavior. And in some cases, the stories are obviously outlandish and ridiculous and still get accepted as legit by most in the community--yes, 45 foot leaping, pig tossing bigfoot fairy tale, I'm looking at you.

[ohiobill]

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:

 

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. 

Skepticism certainly doesn't have to hinder objectivity - it's usually recommended as way to increase one's objectivity.

 

Ugh, I have a love-hate relationship with the PGF. It's what got me interested in the subject and even though I spend a lot of time in the PGF section I don't have anywhere near the expertise to even think about going up against the serious posters there, especially Bill Munns. Honestly I don't know how anyone but an experienced costume designer could see it the way he does but I have seen numerous contributions made by skeptics and proponents alike in those threads that Bill has considered and even adopted in cases so I have hope I can get up to speed.

 

As far as the video goes, from my very non-expert opinion, I can't and won't even attempt to argue any of the technical details. The only real problem I have with the presentation itself is not choosing a model posed more closely to Patty in the first place. I think a model with slumped posture and a bent torso more closely approximating that of Patty's would more closely match Patty's head, shoulder, and hand position without the need for scaling. The outcome may have been even worse, I don't know and don't have the skills to attempt. All I can say is it would have appeared more transparent and objective to a non-expert like myself if the pose were as close as possible.  

 

In general with the PGF I have two main reservations. The first is size - I have seen countless estimates of both height and mass but I know that we don't have any definitive answers despite the amount of time and effort put into trying to find the answers. I'm not sure I would ever be willing to rule out the possibility of a hoax without having that kind of basic information. The second is lack of consensus - I'd have a lot more confidence in the conclusion if it went through some sort of peer review as I don't have the technical knowledge and I've read so many differing expert opinions about it.

 

I don't know if it's any consolation but the PGF is keeping me an open-minded skeptic. It brought me here and is keeping me here along with some of the science being conducted. 

[David NC]

SWWA. You can scale back your foot size a little. The current world record for foot size is held by Brahim Takioullah. His left foot is 15" and his right foot is 14 3/4". If you find a track 15" inches or larger it was not made by a human going naturally bare foot, it would have to be a hoaxed print or a Sasquatch. You may want to contact Brahim and ask if he was walking in your research area barefoot lately though just to eliminate that skeptical reply before it gets off the ground.

[dmaker]

David, you forgot to include a track left by a common animal and mistaken for otherwise in your options. To leave that option out makes it all the easier for people to reason that " hey, a hoaxer would never come here and do this, therefore it's bigfoot!"

Edited October 17, 2014 by dmaker

[salubrious]

I will never understand why the consistency in the reports is so impressive to some.

 

Having seen them close up and personal, I do find it interesting how many reports get the details right. How did they do that? They all fabricated something that arrived at a common center, which coincidentally matches what exists in real life? That would be a coincidence of astounding proportion. 

 

Skepticism certainly doesn't have to hinder objectivity - it's usually recommended as way to increase one's objectivity.

 

That seems to me to be real skepticism, of which I have no troubles with at all. I have to maintain a fair amount of skepticism myself- else I will be looking for them behind every tree and ready for the loony bin.

[WSA]

Just to keep this honest dmaker, we have to acknowledge that your lack of understanding on that point is not after actually reading the large volume of reports. You choose not to do that, and so you can, but to then profess ignorance about what others find compelling in them who DO read them is well, to say the least, somewhat counterproductive to reasoned inquiry as to what they may/may not show. 

[SWWASAS]

David, Well the problem with foot size is that I am finding them between 14 and 15 inches. So while I think it unlikely they are human because of the size and find locations, I cannot be sure. If you think about it, even if the size suggests BF, finding one just means that BF are active in the area. There is not much else I can learn from it. If Meldrum cannot convince his colleagues, what hope is there for me? I suppose I am getting jaded because of having found several now. I believe that I have posted pictures of all the finds on BFF but skeptics still keep claiming there is no evidence. In their world, I must have a set of stompers.

[dmaker]

Just to keep this honest dmaker, we have to acknowledge that your lack of understanding on that point is not after actually reading the large volume of reports. You choose not to do that, and so you can, but to then profess ignorance about what others find compelling in them who DO read them is well, to say the least, somewhat counterproductive to reasoned inquiry as to what they may/may not show. 

I've read quite a few reports. I have stated such in the past. I don't read them anymore, other than ones that get linked in various threads that I happen to be reading at the time.  Just like I stopped watching Finding Bigfoot a couple of seasons back. Sorry, but your jab is feeble.

 

I don't think one need to have read every report to wonder at what is so difficult about conjuring up congruent details? In all the reports that I have read, there is nothing in them that anyone with a passing familiarity with apes or this phenomenon could not have easily faked. 

Edited October 17, 2014 by dmaker

[Bonehead74]

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.

Hey now!

[WSA]

You've read quite a few then? Good. The bigger the data set, the smaller the likelihood of copy-cat hoaxes. Read a lot more (like hundreds) and the similarities will emerge in greater detail. One thing I always do when one is reported is to thumb back through the other reports from that same area and see what pops up. It is often surprising what you'll find, some accountsw going back decades. I sort of read them too just for the human interest angle. You learn things completely independent of BFtology. That is one thing about reading Bil Munns' book that I didn't expect. I'm learning some really cool stuff about Hollywood special effects techniques from a practitioner of the craft.