What's The Deal With Skeptics?

[dmaker]

WSA, If I recall correctly, you gave credence to the pig tossing bigfoot report. If that passes your sniff test, then please do not offer me advice on extracting valuable data from the reports. 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't grant the following premise:

 

"The bigger the data set, the smaller the likelihood of copy-cat hoaxes." 

 

Is it not true that the number of reports has increased dramatically in the last decade? So perhaps something like the ubiquity of Internet access might have something to do with that?  When all one need to do to report a bigfoot sighting, or hoax one, is to submit something online, then no, your premise falls apart. Obviously if they are submitting a report online, we can assume they have Internet access and could easily have read some bigfoot reports prior to fabricating their own. 

Edited October 17, 2014 by dmaker

[MIB]

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.

 

At least you got the "never understand" part right.      

 

I observe that a wise person, when confronted by not understanding, stops talking and starts listening because that is where wisdom comes from but a fool continues to talk, apparently in case someone does not believe their claim and needs more proof.

 

I accept your claim.   Lets move on.

 

Question: you say "obviously outlandish".   Is there a subjective, rather than objective, definition? 

 

MIB

[dmaker]

MIB, by all means, enlighten me then.  What is in the reports that one could not have previously gleaned from documentaries, bigfoot fiction, reading bigfoot reports, or simply observing apes in a zoo?  You say I need more wisdom in this matter,so please share some of yours if you will.

 

"Question: you say "obviously outlandish".   Is there a subjective, rather than objective, definition? "

 

By obviously outlandish I meant a story where the details are so ridiculous that it is difficult to take the story seriously.

Edited October 17, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest]

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. 

We all find some stories compelling. Where we go from that is not set in stone. I come off as a skeptic but I am more of a believer than skeptic even though I expect valid evidence. Tough nut but there you have it.

[MIB]

MIB, by all means, enlighten me then.  What is in the reports that one could not have previously gleaned from documentaries, bigfoot fiction, reading bigfoot reports, or simply observing apes in a zoo?  You say I need more wisdom in this matter,so please share some of yours if you will.

 

"Question: you say "obviously outlandish".   Is there a subjective, rather than objective, definition? "

 

By obviously outlandish I meant a story where the details are so ridiculous that it is difficult to take the story seriously.

 

You DO know that there were bigfoot reports before there were documentaries or bigfoot fiction or collected bigfoot reports?    Even predating discovery of gorillas by science?   Right?  So ... the dots you seem to connect should not be connected.   When your underlying assumptions are wrong, what you conclude from them isn't even wrong, it's meaningless.

 

If you were up to speed on your BF report reading, you'd know that there are pre 1900 reports, so pre internet, pre bigfoot fiction, pre documentary, found in small newspapers with only limited local readership, yet the details of the reports match beyond what randomness accounts for.   The only possible common thread between them is that they are based on an authentic event / observation that is occurring in many places.   In other words ... BF is a biological species, not a delusion.

 

You didn't answer the question about "obviously outlandish", you just substituted another subjective, rather than objective, term "so ridiculous".   Again, can you define that in subjective, rather than objective terms?    What I'm asking for is a clear yardstick, a shared / common understanding of measure like inches or cups or lumens that can be tested, not a something involving passing judgment the thing and expecting others to agree.

 

MIB

Edited October 17, 2014 by MIB

[kitakaze]

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.  

 

 

Thanks for sharing and a detailed answer. I can think of a number of people and members here that speak of personal experiences when they were pre-teens/teens. Everybody was once. I would be interested to hear more about it in an appropriate thread if it's up somewhere. You may be surprised on what I think about it depending on the circumstances.

 

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.

 

 

I think Crow noted earlier that without ever having seen a Bigfoot, he could write up a very convincing report. I think there's a shared basis and language and style that is understood amongst Bigfooters. 

 

This is not a test or anything, just a report I was reading the other day. I am only going to include what was originally reported as observed, not any follow up or any other details, and I would ask you how you think it compares with reports you accept as genuine. Again, this is not a gotcha. I have no idea about the veracity of this report, obviously other than to say I am skeptical of it...

 

OBSERVED: I do not know what I saw. But I do know it was something that should not have been there and it will remain with me the rest of my life. I was turkey hunting 1 morning approximately 4 years ago. I have never told my story due to I feel people will not believe me. It rained all night long that night and thus it allowed me to walk into the forest in complete silence (No leaves crackling etc.) I set up on a hill side over looking a small creek and valley. It was nearly pitch black due to the overcast sky but soon the rain stopped and the forest became brighter. Soon after I realized I was sitting within 15 feet of several birds that were roosted in a tree next to me. I didnt know they were there until they started shaking the rain off. My gun was already propped on my knee and pointed at my decoy. As things became brighter I could make out most of the valley floor and I continued to watch the birds roosted next to me. Soon after 1 of the birds gobbled I began hearing something off in the distance almost immediately after. I only remember this because it was a very strange paced sound. The rythym of it seemed odd. Nothing I could think of would make a sound like this. I could see down the valley to my right for a fairly long distance however, to my left a seperate hillside came out and I could not see up the valley in that direction. The noise continued with almost near perfect rythym for several minutes with only occasional breaks. It continued to get louder. I soon realized the sound I was hearing was coming from up the valley in the direction I could not see. The turkeys in their roost next to me stopped gobbling and remained silent. A few moments later the forest was becoming fairly bright and I could see most everything around me. All of the birds roosted in the tree flew down and hit the forest floor running. They didnt even seem to notice the decoy. I remained perfectly still watching the birds run through the forest down to my right through the valley. They acted as though something spooked them. At first I thought maybe it was me that spooked them but then it occured to me the sound had stopped about the same time the birds took off. As soon as the birds were out of sight the noise began again. I remained still leaning against a large ash tree. Maybe 1 minute after I lost sight of the birds the sound was becoming much louder and apparent of what it might be. My first instinct was that another hunter was walking through the forest. However, to this day I will never forget what I saw in the coming moments. The sound with an almost steady rythym reminded me of what it would sound like if I were walking on dry leaves in the forest. There was not a drop of wind on this morning and I believe the valley might have been echoing the sound. A few moments later I caught sight of it. Maybe 50 yards to my left coming into view on the bottom edge of the valley. At first I thought it was a hunter in a gilly suit. But upon closer examination I realized this was no human wearing a camo outfit. It continued to walk up right on two feet down the valley towards my right. When the creature got to the bottom of the hill out cropping I was sitting on it stopped dead in its tracks and remained perfectly still momentarily. I think it was as this point I truly realized what I was seeing. When it stopped and stood still it became nearly invisible in the forest. It seemed an eternity passed while I sat against this tree uncontrollably shaking. I was scared out of my wits even with a 10GA shotgun propped on my knee pointed in the direction of the creature. What happened next scared me so bad I would have bet my life on it that was going to have a heart attack. The creature turned its head and looked directly at me. I stared directly into the eyes of this creature for an unkown amount of time. It made no sound, it did not move, only stared at me. I was in full camoflauge including a facemask so maybe it was not sure what I was?? Shaking so bad at this point the only thing I could think of was to defend myself. I clicked the saftey off on my shotgun. When I did this the creature went into an almmost crouching position only it seemed more like it was in a position that would allow it to move quickly. The stare down went on for what seemed forever. I readied my shotgun not afraid to move anymore since it was apparent I had been seen. When I positioned my left hand under the forearm of my shotgun the creature sprang up nearly causing me to pull the trigger. It continued its walk though the forest with its head turned watching me. I continued pointing my gun at it. I never pulled the trigger. I was so afraid I didnt know what to do. Eventually I lost sight of it. I jumped up as soon as it was gone and I ran back to my truck without stopping to rest once. To this day I will never forget what I saw or the feeling of absolute terror that overcame me. I do not want to be famous nor do I want my story posted all over the internet. I just thought I should tell somebody my story.

 

 

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.

 

 

Rather than chew your ear off about the PGF, I'll just state the obvious that I don't accept it. Aside from that, there are only three people who have made attempts at recreating Patty that we can look at, and none of them was a professional creature FX artist. As for Freeman footage, aside from him being not only an obvious but admitted hoaxer, as well, I would ask which Freeman footage, because he has more than one....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsAMjjP0NIo

 

And from his son... (1:07)

 

 

And I would also encourage you to take it on yourself to take the time to watch his entire raw footage. The obviousness of his track hoaxing is comedic to see. Look hear at the perfect rim imprint he has on steep inclines with both babyfoots and adults...

 

 

Admitting hoaxing...

(4:25)

 

 

 

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

 

 

Flex is something which has been shown to be observed by Bigfoot researchers in tracks made from wood, like BCM for example. What tracks do you think show flex?

 

As for bell curve, this to me is a Fahrenbach canard and something that needs to be peer reviewed for what kind of filtration is going on. Audio, the best I can say is the best I've heard sounds fun, but nothing I could call reliable evidence and certainly not evidence of talking Bigfoots

[Incorrigible1]

MIB, are you able, like our other "reads like the wind" report viewer, able to discern truth in a report?

[ohiobill]

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.

I think all of us, proponents and skeptics alike, expect a public outcome on research. I'm not sure why you would suggest otherwise in a climate where we have multiple DNA studies out with more to come, easy access to multiple studies already written and even numerous tv shows featuring researchers including weekly DNA testing by Dr. Disotell on Bigfoot Bounty. Perhaps we just have different opinions about what constitutes research? I don't spend a lot of time worrying about private theories I don't know about? Generally, if I read something I'm interested in I ask about it and go from there. Most of the researchers and scientists I've known all have pet theories. It's usually harder to get them to shut up than to get them started. Personally, I would be skeptical about having to drag a theory out of someone or jump through hoops to see their evidence. What would they gain by having a private theory? At least being out in the open the theory would belong to them and couldn't be ascribed to someone else? Good evidence could have both a prestige and a monetary value - why keep it secret?

 

Once one gets through the thousands of posts demanding science and skeptics examine the mystery I don't see too many demands being made at all. Ironically, I see a lot of discussion about the science currently being conducted and folks discussing their hopes for more of the same. I'm not sure how I would go about discounting everything not disclosed to me (I would need to be aware of something and have a chance to examine it before I could have an opinion?) nor am I worried about being duped. If the evidence presented can stand the scrutiny of this forum it's ready for the big time and another layer of skeptical scrutiny. I've seen members here point out details very experienced researchers have missed, dishonest researchers exposed, and even research groups sent packing. There are some very astute people here on both sides of the table.

 

With the limited amount of time I am able to devote to the subject I (like most here I believe) have to settle for what folks bring forward. When hearing about evidence that a researcher or group might have I have to console myself with the thought that if the evidence is too weak for them to bring forward that I probably would have agreed. Even if they are too timid to bring it forward themselves I have to expect it will eventually surface in a study sometime if it's strong enough so I will get the opportunity to view it then and examine it for myself.

 

Thanks for the advice, I will certainly consider it. 

Hey now!

Doh! Presently company excluded obviously. 

[dmaker]

 

You didn't answer the question about "obviously outlandish", you just substituted another subjective, rather than objective, term "so ridiculous".   Again, can you define that in subjective, rather than objective terms?    What I'm asking for is a clear yardstick, a shared / common understanding of measure like inches or cups or lumens that can be tested, not a something involving passing judgment the thing and expecting others to agree.

 

MIB

This is your original question:

 

"Question: you say "obviously outlandish".   Is there a subjective, rather than objective, definition? "

 

 

I did define it in subjective terms. You're contradicting yourself and making it confusing to understand what you are asking. A clear yardstick, as you say, is objective, not subjective. Which is a perplexing request ( aside from your seeming interchanging of subjective and objective) when my whole point was about the level of subjective interpretation in bigfoot reports. 

 

But to try and answer your question ( or at least the one I think you are asking), given the example I provided, I would call something outlandish when the feats of strength described seem unlikely and the distance jumped also unlikely. 45 feet  in a single jump is beyond the capabilities of any large mammal on the planet if I recall correctly. 

Edited October 18, 2014 by dmaker

[David NC]

Dmaker, sorry you do not remember correctly. The species Uncia uncia holds the record for the longest jump after leaping over a 49' wide ditch. The world record for a human is 29' 4.36" , is it really far fetched that an animal that has twice the stride of the average human and is definitely stronger than us cannot jump 54% further than us?

[Guest dxm2]

Uncia uncia is a  cat.  Why bring that up?

[David NC]

Uncia uncia is a Snow Leopard and a large mammal on this planet, as the above post stated no large mammal was capable of.  I am just holding the bar as high as others on here.

Edited October 18, 2014 by David NC

[David NC]

Dmaker brings up a good point. Be careful not to mistake other not hoaxed, but known animals with tracks greater than 15" long, clawless and bipedal for Sasquatch tracks.

[Wingman1]

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! 

 

 

An excellent answer Ohiobill. You have explained your points well and your perception of the situation is right on target.

I love the "Probonehead" moniker too! I wished I had thought of that! Some folks just don't realize that it can go both

ways on being a bit too extreme. That could probably be just the passion for the subject that some have towards the BF

mystery. I agree that something needs to change regarding the search for good evidence. I always try to change my

approach to something when I reach a point of diminishing returns. Now whether the new approach should be a simple

modification, or a radical change meaning to possibly leaving ones comfort zone and start digging around outside of the

proverbial box. You are right about the hoaxers and crooked researchers out there! They are definitely not helping matters.

I agree that we should not see that as something to damage what has been gained thus far. If anything it should give us a

better look into their methods in order to recognize them more quickly, and hopefully counter their effectiveness and move on.

I did not word my comment about heading towards a deadend properly, I was agreeing with you about much of the research

and evidence has led to a deadend. It is a possibility though. I guess I should proof read my posts from now on. I think

there are far more lost opportunities than we can imagine, and withholding evidence by any witness or researcher will always

be  a bone of contention, and I can understand their reluctance to a certain degree and you are right that the confrontation

they will get here is nothing compared to what will happen when it hits the public. It is just the nature of the beast. I am heading

to the monkey bars now, see you there!

[dmaker]

Uncia uncia is a Snow Leopard and a large mammal on this planet, as the above post stated no large mammal was capable of.  I am just holding the bar as high as others on here.

Forgive me. I should have specified a biped. Or perhaps you are proposing another sub-type, like the dogman? The leaping catsquatch?

Edited October 18, 2014 by dmaker