What's The Deal With Skeptics?

[Bonehead74]

A Venn diagram might be instructive here, hiflier.

[Guest Stan Norton]

As I see things, the only logical and intellectually coherent response here is (if you are even interested in the phenomenon that is) that the evidence is still out: unless you have seen one then a definitive opinion seems ludicrous. Sasquatch is not the same as fairies, no matter how much that comparison makes some feel better. It may indeed be possible in some weird universe that fairies or faeries or elves or leprechauns exist, yet we have no scientific evidence to even suggest such a thing. On the other hand we have mucho scientific evidence that the world supports and has for millions of years supported bipedal apes. So the comparison falls flat immediately as a non starter. It is frankly ridiculous.

Does this mean sasquatch is real? Of course not. We have no proof of that which would convince the wider scientific community or even the bulk of the rest. I don't actually care all that much, certainly not enough to spend all day constructing sarcastic animated gifs, but very much enjoy what I consider to be a perfectly valid scientific pursuit: exploring the possibility, dare I say probability, of sasquatch being a real organism. What is there to lose when one hasn't painted oneself into a corner of a chatroom?

[WSA]

Serious question deserves a serious answer Dmaker....The best I can answer that is with the phrase, "You can't unring the bell"

but I'll give it a shot.

 

You've got all this stuff to explain so far that it seems it either gets explained in one fell swoop, ("Look...I shot this Sasquatch"), or it stays out there unanswered for a looooooong time.  But, the mere passage of time is not going to do it for me because in all likelihood I'll be dead and gone in maybe 30-40 years judging by my family history and hoping no pianos get dropped on me. That is a blink of an eye. I think the probability is great that I won't see a definitive answer to this question before I croak, and you've got to be on board with that possibility to see the issue for what it is, I think. Of course, if a BF walks through my camp some dark night, I've got my answer, and screw y'all!  :-)

 

There are certainly lynchpins in the evidence though. You could, for instance have a dedicated person perfectly replicate the Patty film using period special effects. That would be huge development, and one I sort of root for because I like to see paradigms upended, even my own. There could be a confirmation that each and every alleged track was hoaxed, but you and I both know that ain't going to happen, so that is probably off the menu. I suppose the BFRO could announce their entire database was a fabrication, just in the interest of generating ratings for Finding Bigfoot.  Highly doubtful too, because I have talked with too many people who have proven trustworthy here who have the same experience to tell. But yeah, if all of those things somehow did occurr? Sure, my interest will be gone, and I'd be quicker to dismiss my own weird occurrences as anything significant. 

 

But honestly, these things will perpetually be categorized as just unexpained, or they will be easily explained, but we are all probably doomed to live in this limbo zone for our entire lives. Such is the price of curiosity. The Amerindians always said the whites just couldn't stand a mystery. That remains true more often than not. You can't will knowledge into existence, you can only wait for it, help it along where you can, and recognize it when it arrives.       

Edited October 9, 2014 by WSA

[hiflier]

Hello Bonehead74,

 

 

All I know is that "possible" describes a sort of minimum, non-zero situation. "Probable" in a common term-sense loosely takes "possible" to a better than 50% chance of being "likely". Simply put it comes down to degrees. It's "possible" covers "it COULD happen". "Probable" goes far beyond the "it COULD happen" part as if the "possible" is already a given. So yeah, you're "probably" (better than 50%) right about that Venn diagram  

[Squatchy McSquatch]

My skepticism lies somewhere between Kit's passion  and 0.00005% probability of existence.

 

But it's still fun, darnnit.

[hiflier]

Hello Squatchy Mcsquatch,

 

Couldn't agree more. More fun than a barrel full of Patty's. Well.....almost

[Incorrigible1]

Is there a correlation between the more reports one reads (and somehow "knows" which are true) and a failure of sense of logic?

[hiflier]

Hello Inorrigible1,

 

Yes. It's all in the "knowing" part. Ya read one and it's true. Ya read a second and.....by golly, that one's true too! It's a slippery slope.

[Guest Crowlogic]

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.

A perfect example of fuel for skeptics such as myself.  We"re to believe a researcher is intimately involved with these creatures and yet in spite of this intimacy the researcher will not come forward and introduce the animal to science which is the proper goal of research.  Someone like myself now says "oh come on what nonsense."  Visit NASA.gov and watch their discussions and videos and you'll quickly understand what the real thing (science and fact) looks and sounds like.

 

The mountain of evidence is pretty meaningless at this point.  Bigfoot sightings exist, they sure do but all it means is that people are willing , by whatever means drives them, to make reportage's of Bigfoot.  Bigfoot at this point in time says more about people than it does about the mythology of Bigfoot itself.

[Incorrigible1]

Some claim bigfoot dematerializes at will..........Woo woo.....

[hiflier]

Hello Incorrigible1,

 

Not to be one to correct you but you have about one "woo" to many there. I find one "woo" to be more than sufficient in describing the fringe of the fringe.

[ohiobill]

Now I'm confused. I thought "woo woo" was the last boarding call before the Crazy Train leaves the station and heads out to pick up bib wearing Sassy.

[Doc Holliday]

Some claim bigfoot dematerializes at will.........

 

maybe BF  saw wills chainsaw and got scared... 

[chelefoot]

In my rather short time in the BF community, I have become wayyy more skeptical. I find myself dismissing everything I see posted.But I get reports privately from people that have nothing to gain, do not want to go public...and they are 100 percent sure of what they saw. That, along with reports like Art's, makes it impossible for me to be 100 percent certain they do not exist. 

 

But those types of encounters are few and far between (meaning sighting from people I trust to be telling the truth-period - and there are others here). We are constantly bombarded with blobsquactches, outrageous stories, stumpsquatches, conspiricies....And I agree with what others have said. If someone posts a blobsquatch, then gets upset when questioned about it - that's a big red flag, IMO. You present evidence of what you think is bigfoot, to a group of your peers, what do you expect? Pats on the back? Evidence HAS to be scrutinized. If that upsets the poster, then the evidence can't stand on it's own.

 

If proof ever does show up (a body found, etc...)  I hope it's by a completely unknown to the BF Community.

 

Well, except for maybe WVFooter, Gigantor, Nathan... 

[Guest DWA]

What I think is wrong is assuming that because of the evidence the person put forward they didn't see what they saw.  Just part ways if you don't like the evidence; but absent clear evidence that they didn't see it, i.e., they saw something else that you can prove they saw - the only logical thing for me to do is:  them over you.  They were there.  You weren't.

 

I have no evidence but that of my eyes - or my companions if they were with me and saw it - for almost all the wildlife encounters of my lifetime.  I saw them, though, and nothing anyone says will change that or make it false.  For anyone to contest any of them, in fact, is just about the silliest and most pointless pseudo-intellectual exercise I can think of.  My wife was a co-witness of the sasquatch tracks we found in the CA Siskiyou, and there is simply nothing else, logic tells me, they could have been.  They were bipedal, manlike tracks, and had to be of something bigger than us by a lot; they were almost an inch deep in soil we couldn't dent with lug soles and heavy packs.  We were not near road nor trail.  The tracks weren't clear enough to show toes, but there is simply nothing else they could have been.  The effort for a human to make these, in a place no one had any reason or right to expect a human anytime soon?  (We spent seven of the most beautiful days I have spent outdoors - spectacular swimming holes; more bears than clouds - utterly and completely alone.) 

 

What bigfoot skeptics engage in is a peculiar 21st-century disease:  if it is not proven, it cannot be real.  There is really no way to get a handle on that; it's kind of a scary mindset to contemplate, and glad I am not there.  The only open-minded opinion, on anything, possible, is:  I don't know; I wasn't there; I await further evidence.  What I see here a lot instead is:  I know just how the world is; I'm done accumulating knowledge; and what I have so far says this is impossible.  The problem with this field - skeptic and proponent alike - is that it is almost entirely populated with people who cannot evaluate evidence; who know little to nothing about the natural world; who don't know how to relate the things they do know to this topic; and who don't understand that the evidence not only makes this likely, but just about the most logical thing to expect.

 

But you gotta get there first; and that implies being interested.