What's The Deal With Skeptics?

[SWWASAS]

It was stated that by reading hundreds of reports that anyone could fabricate a BF encounter. I have read that many reports, and had encounters of my own, but could not begin to tell you what the face of an adult BF looks like. Because other than a juvenile I photographed, I have never seen an adult BF face, or a picture or drawing I can be sure is authentic. So if I fabricated a report and was questioned by someone who had seen an adult BF, I would fail the interrogation. If I tried, and you notice I have not, most likely I would try to describe an artists representation since other than Patty not much is out there that shows the head. An artists work could be dead wrong and I suspect many are. A shook up witness is a poor person to describe what something looks like to an artist. I took a pole one time asking witnesses if they had ever seen a BF's ears. Not one of several witnesses could recall seeing ears. They must have them but no one can tell me if they are located similar to ours or further up on the head like a bear. They are either very small or hidden by head hair.

Edited October 18, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Crowlogic]

It was stated that by reading hundreds of reports that anyone could fabricate a BF encounter. I have read that many reports, and had encounters of my own, but could not begin to tell you what the face of an adult BF looks like. Because other than a juvenile I photographed, I have never seen an adult BF face, or a picture or drawing I can be sure is authentic. 

Here's the rub...you don't have to know what the face of an adult bigfoot looks like since there are no good photos of one.  You can just about say anything and it'll be as good as anything else.

[dmaker]

I, obviously, have never seen a bigfoot, but I can all but guarantee I could lodge a report on the BFRO that would easily pass the sniff test of anyone here and end up on the "good pile". It would not be difficult at all I don't think. I would never put this to the test since hoaxing is not something I would do, but to say that the believable details are the hallmark of a genuine sighting is quite wrong I believe.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Yes dmaker, you could, undoubtedly, but to suggest that in and of itself that negates eyewitness reports as a whole is not consistent with logic.

 

IMHO, what is most important in talking with the eyewitnesses is that we not only take a report, but we screen the character of the individual, some

efforts have been made to do this by the BRFO, but I realize that at times someone will fake a report, maybe even fairly frequently that might be

the case, yet that still leaves a majority of cases that are honest, and weeding out misidentification and insanity, even fewer that stand the test, but

even if that becomes a minority, the fact that these are legitimate cannot be ignored.  (a classic run on sentence)  Of course the case does not

stand on whether any or all cases are legitimate, if even one case can be deemed legitimate than the question remains.  The question is not one

of being skeptical, it is one of being honest, if you are honest you must admit that you cannot say Sasquatch does not or cannot exist, but you

can admit you doubt it, which is a matter of belief, not a matter of scientific investigation, to rule out Sasquatch exists we must explain all the footprint casts away as fake, and all eyewitness reports as fake or mislead, so honestly we cannot rule out the possibility of such a creature and

be truly honest, it is a matter of belief to say they cannot exist.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Lake County Bigfooot

[dmaker]

" Yes dmaker, you could, undoubtedly, but to suggest that in and of itself that negates eyewitness reports as a whole is not consistent with logic."

 

That was not what I said. I said that the oft touted consistency in the reports points to truth is, in my opinion, wrong since fabricating a report that contains, what many would consider consistent details, would not be difficult at all to do. 

 

The evidence that you mentioned can, and often has been, faked. So until, or if, bigfoot is ever confirmed then one cannot rule out mistakes or hoaxes in any single piece of the mentioned evidence. That is,also, just being honest and logical.   

 

Name one type of evidence for bigfoot that has not also had examples of hoaxing or mistaken identity. Just one. You cannot. We have proof of faked tracks; proof of faked photos; proof of faked video; DNA testing results, many of them, that have come back as either synthetic material or known animals. I am not saying that this proves that ALL alleged bigfoot evidence is mistakes or faked, but it demonstrates that any one of them could be. This negates your assertion that we must prove all of them to be fake. No, proponents must prove just ONE of them to be genuine.  Therein lies the burden of proof. Not the other way around.  

 

To suggest that some of them must be true unless all are proven fake is incorrect. Many have been proven to be faked or mistakes, not a single one has proven to be genuine. There is no secret truth lurking in the absence of proof that all are fake. That is incorrect logic. If anything the current record leans strongly toward more fake than genuine since, as I pointed out, not a single piece of alleged bigfoot evidence has ever been proven to be genuine. But many have been proven false. The numbers are not on your side.

Edited October 18, 2014 by dmaker

[Bonehead74]

^^^Plussed, dmaker^^^

Speaking as a bigfoot proponent, this is the most cogent and succinct critique of the evidence "problem" and the burden of proof that I have read here. BF believers and proponents of all bents have to face it if they want to be taken seriously.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Bonehead74

[dmaker]

^^ Thank-you, and I appreciate that Bonehead74.   Love your avatar by the way

[Guest DWA]

Um, no, actually, dmaker's wrong and wrong by so much - and pointed out way way too many times here - that I'm not going to waste fingerprints doing it again.

 

That's the 'argument' of the person who hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with the evidence, as all the skeptics I am aware of - and way too many proponents - simply have not.  Anyone who has actually read reports and is aware of the rigorous testing of footprint evidence recognizes this.  But again, that is way too few people.

You have been invited to get read up, dmaker.  One does wonder when the educational process will begin.  It clearly has not.  Simple as that, and as usual, borne out by evidence.

[dmaker]

" Um, no, actually, dmaker's wrong and wrong by so much - and pointed out way way too many times here - that I'm not going to waste fingerprints doing it again."

 

And yet, you didn't stop talking.....

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Whatever that meant, class, and dmaker stepped right into it, didn't he.

 

Right.  HE HAS CONCEDED THE CONSISTENCY OF THE REPORTS, and as it's been shown to him that this consistency spans the entire history of sasquatch reporting - a history pre-dating not only Roger Patterson and Jerry Crews but the discovery of great-ape behavior echoing sasquatch reports that preceded that discovery - he is now committing the ultimate scientific blasphemy:  postulating a possible reason for this consistency off the top of his unread skull and saying let's go to bed now, shall we?  Now, class.  What would you say to a scientist who did that?  You know what you'd say, don't you.

 

The consistency automatically makes the reports - double-bolstered by similarly consistent footprint evidence, quintuple-bolstered by a film, now for all intents and purposes proven authentic, that neatly ties the sightings and prints together - scientifically significant and compelling, and places the obligation upon every scientist to (1) hold an open mind and (2) acknowledge the determination of the provenance of the evidence as a scientific priority.

 

But hasn't that been said to him hundreds of times here.  [Whole class nods/smiles]

 

Any time you want to join the conversation, dmaker.  At least (and this isn't the first time, just the most obvious) you concede having no clue how the scientific mind works.  Baby steps.  Read up and then we'll talk.  For now, you are just serving as the syllabus example of "avoid the following...".

Edited October 19, 2014 by DWA

[hiflier]

Hello Lake County Bigfooot,

 

....IMHO, what is most important in talking with the eyewitnesses is that we not only take a report, but we screen the character of the individual, some efforts have been made to do this by the BRFO, but I realize that at times someone will fake a report.....

Yes, LCB, what you say is on point. A hypothetical example (actually it isn't) would be someone highly regarded in the Bigfoot circle who has been found......how to put it nicely......insincere? Hear that DWA? You have work to do my friend so hop to it. Ignoring the challenge the first time round doesn't mean it goes away. You know me better than that right? Again, PM me if you have questions.

Edited October 19, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest thermalman]

Um, no, actually, dmaker's wrong and wrong by so much - and pointed out way way too many times here - that I'm not going to waste fingerprints doing it again.

That's the 'argument' of the person who hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with the evidence, as all the skeptics I am aware of - and way too many proponents - simply have not. Anyone who has actually read reports and is aware of the rigorous testing of footprint evidence recognizes this. But again, that is way too few people.

You have been invited to get read up, dmaker. One does wonder when the educational process will begin. It clearly has not. Simple as that, and as usual, borne out by evidence.

You're so funny. Show us the money shot "Mr. Educational."

Here's a money shot of a wolf track with my son-in-law's hand beside it for size reference, just last weekend. BTW, his hand measures 7" long by 5" wide.

Edited October 19, 2014 by thermalman

[hiflier]

Hello thermalman,

 

GULP!...... Big animal.

[chelefoot]

Hiflier,

The suspense is killing me!

[Incorrigible1]

 Hear that DWA? You have work to do my friend so hop to it. Ignoring the challenge the first time round doesn't mean it goes away.

Plussed for well-proclaimed truth. Constant babble doesn't make one's point.