What's The Deal With Fence Sitters?

[Guest DWA]

 

Why? Why is that logical? I don't agree that it is.

 

Most of us are in agreement, however, that a stance based on nothing but dmaker's say-so isn't exactly a logical bulwark, either.  

 

There are many, many examples of fake or mistaken alleged bigfoot evidence.

 

So?  Lots of fake diamonds.  Diamonds not real?

 

Yet, conversely, not one piece of alleged bigfoot evidence has ever passed scientific scrutiny. Not one.  

 

There is no way that could be the fault of (1) the people who aren't scrutinizing it and (2) the people who are utterly silent on the arguments of the scientists who are.  Oh look.  Same people.  How 'bout that.

 

Yet you want to talk about numbers and probability? You want to assume logic where there is no basis to do so?   No basis other than your tissue of assumptions, you mean, hmmmm?

Edited October 23, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I happen to believe wholeheartedly that the fence-sitter position is completely valid and an important part of the overall equation.

 

I used to be a fence-sitter. I wanted to believe but got frustrated at the lack of scientific evidence to support BF's existence.

 

Then I got into reading eyewitness reports and realized everyone could not be crazy and some really legitimate folks were experiencing things and having sightings.

 

I then tried to get to know those who had experienced sightings and realized they were for the most part good and credible folks no different than myself.

 

I asked myself what they had to garner from outing themselves other than ridicule and could not come up with an answer. It takes great courage IMO to relate a sighting knowing full well that you will be challenged and unable to fully substantiate what you witnessed.

 

Of course I also witnessed folks who had experienced a sighting and wished to share it here and watched in disbelief as they were shamed for relating their experience. No wonder at all that more do not come out and I feel really comfortable in stating that the most credible evidence is held privately.

 

I *get* someone being on the fence that has never had a personal experience and find themselves swayed by the eyewitness accounts yet need a little more to become a believer.

 

I was there myself a couple of years ago.

 

So for me, having never had a first hand experience I totally *get* the fence-sitter stance.

 

It is one of comfort and leaves the person to decide for themself based on what they read and their intuition.

[Guest DWA]

I totally get fence sitters.

 

When I am talking about the evidence and my pretty-much-certitude of what it represents, I am not talking to fence sitters.  I am not even talking to those who have never thought about this, one bit, at all, other than, when they hear the word "bigfoot," snort and go, Please.  Them I have no problem with.  I don't expect most people to get interested in this; most people don't have significant interest in any of the related subject matter in ways that would make them interested in this.  "Neutron star" would draw a blank with most people too, as would "muon."

 

The ones I have the problem with are the ones who have done no more thinking about this or research into it than any random Joe or Jane on the street, who fancy they come here to lecture the rest of us on reality, or science, or evidence, when in fact they have serious problems understanding how any of those work.

Edited October 23, 2014 by DWA

[Guest]

I would hope most interested in the subject would be 'fence sitters', as that would seem to indicate at least an open mind on the subject. When I think about it, I can see why most folks who have interest in the subject but have only an intellectual interest and no encounter, or no knowledge or experience about the subject would be fence sitters until they were nudged by events, a personal encounter, or through research driven by their own curiosity. To the general public Sasquatch is a myth, a monster, something to have fun with or ridicule. To 'join' the "Bigfoot Community" out of curiosity with no personal impetus I think I would think most would be 'fence sitters' .  I understand those fence sitting members position in the general community better than those who don't believe in Bigfoot at all, or accept the possibility of its' existence.

[Guest]

DWA - Very good responses ....

 

 

Jiggy Potamus - I enjoyed the reading though it had me dizzy with all back and forth with all positions and points. I am just thinking about the Steve Fifield study. I wasn't able find an answer to my question so I have to wonder if he listed a number live breathing creatures in the U.S. again, based on BFRO reports? His study as I see it seems to suggest one sighting per report  every 40 years which is not always the reality, and one creature residing one area can often be seen by a half-dozen neighbors in on area in a span of day or week.  If an individual chooses not believe this thing exist they do so largely out of their own most deepest imbedded sense of their being. Me? I believe and know they are . No argument on that point from me.

 

Studies such as the one mentioned above doesn't answer how he accounted for the variables and which variables he determined to be valid. 

[Celtic Raider]

I happen to believe wholeheartedly that the fence-sitter position is completely valid and an important part of the overall equation.

 

I used to be a fence-sitter. I wanted to believe but got frustrated at the lack of scientific evidence to support BF's existence.

 

Then I got into reading eyewitness reports and realized everyone could not be crazy and some really legitimate folks were experiencing things and having sightings.

 

I then tried to get to know those who had experienced sightings and realized they were for the most part good and credible folks no different than myself.

 

I asked myself what they had to garner from outing themselves other than ridicule and could not come up with an answer. It takes great courage IMO to relate a sighting knowing full well that you will be challenged and unable to fully substantiate what you witnessed.

 

Of course I also witnessed folks who had experienced a sighting and wished to share it here and watched in disbelief as they were shamed for relating their experience. No wonder at all that more do not come out and I feel really comfortable in stating that the most credible evidence is held privately.

 

I *get* someone being on the fence that has never had a personal experience and find themselves swayed by the eyewitness accounts yet need a little more to become a believer.

 

I was there myself a couple of years ago.

 

So for me, having never had a first hand experience I totally *get* the fence-sitter stance.

 

It is one of comfort and leaves the person to decide for themself based on what they read and their intuition.

 

For me, unless you actually believe you have seen a Bigfoot, this is the obvious and most reasonable stance on the subject. There is a plethora of information and 'evidence' some of which may be quite good, some of which may be very poor but I don't think many people would arguie without first hand, direct observation it is enough to form a cast iron affirmation of the subject.

 

I would like to believe there are Bigfoot out there and certainly to me the PGF is very, very hard to explain as it looks like a real animal. It's just I don't 100% trust my own visual senses on this subject as I know they can and will be decieved on occasion. That's just reality.

 

I would describe myself as naturally sceptical - in the correct sense of the term - and I think a number of self anointed 'sceptics' here are not really sceptics at all but the exact opposite. They are certain there is no such animal as a Bigfoot - that is not scepticism. To me any critically thinking sceptic who has not had a direct experience that they cannot attribute to any other form should be sat very much on the fence - rather boring but it is the logical position until better evidence or better mundane explanations for the Bigfoot evidence is produced.

[Guest]

Hello Celtic Raider, good point. It reminds of the three wise monkeys!

[Guest]

See no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil.

 

Those are some good points Celtic Raider and I really appreciate your well thought out and reasoned approach.

 

One thing I would relate regarding most skeptics I've ran into over the years is that many of them were once die-hard believers.

 

But a lack of proof over the years and their following the subject for so long caused them to jump over to the skeptical side.

 

Nothing wrong with that IMO.

 

I do have a bit of a problem with those who just outright do not believe, yet frequent the forum and snipe and scoff at proponents.

 

Thus the term *scoftics*.

[Guest]

HRPuffnstuff - I've been reading your posts and I agree! Hat tip to you too. Celtic Raider said it well.  

[Guest]

I can't really speak for fence-sitters, as I have always "believed" that Bigfoot has a high CHANCE to exist. I believe the probability for Bigfoot to really be high, even though there's always, undeniably, a chance that Sasquatch may not exist. Even those who claim to have seen Sasquatch and really mean it, have to think once in a while if Sasquatch is what they really saw. Usually, if you've never had a true Bigfoot encounter, but you just can't bring yourself to see that Bigfoot is fake, then you will most likely be a "fence sitter".

 

In fact, the only reason that I'm not what would be called fence sitter is because I believe that I have heard Bigfoot vocalizations when I was a kid. Now, this is something that I have never told anyone IRL, as very few other people I know have ever considered the possibility of Bigfoot, or that they would just say that I was just really young when I heard them and mistook them for something else (I was only, like, 9 when I heard them). I'm not going to go into detail about my "encounter" here, but what I do believe is that I truly heard what could have been a Sasquatch vocalization: I remember it to this day, and I have compared it to several audio clips of Bigfoot vocalization, and it checked out for me. Though, I do believe that there is a CHANCE that I didn't really hear Bigfoot: I'd say that what I heard had about a %90 chance of being Bigfoot. There will usually always be that chance of %10 or so, for every "legit" sighting, that it's not truly Bigfoot. But for those who have never had a first-hand experience, they would most likely believe in a 50/50 chance of Bigfoot being real or fake. Now this is just my opinion: but I do really believe that not really having a seemingly legit encounter will usually make that person a fence-sitter on the subject.

[Guest]

I'm a rookie here so I will try and take a diplomatic logical approach.

The "creature" is quietly intriguing to me from a purely scientific prospective. Dmaker I've read your posts here and your logic is sound although I doubt you have many fans here but I feel your line of thinking is necessary if anyone who is a believer is to be taken seriously. Scientific, systematic collection of evidence and theories that are governed by the laws of nature is the only approach.

Chelefoot I'm with you, an answer one way or another, the truth, would be satisfying.

Scientifically speaking, habitat, food and water than it's possible it "could" exist, do you at agree with that Dmaker?

There seems to be enough volume of "evidence", eye witness accounts etc to warrant investigation especially since there is a world renowned geneticist willing to submit evidence for testing.

Jiggy I'm ADHD your posts are killing me...

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing TheParaSidrel,,, Takes a certain amount of courage to do so.

 

 

HRPuffnstuff - I've been reading your posts and I agree! Hat tip to you too. Celtic Raider said it well.  

I've been reading your posts as well and a hat tip to you.

 

Might be going out on a limb here but your username intrigues me and suggests you are an LEO. If my suspicions are correct then thank you for protecting and serving.

 

Cool to see you posting JasonW. A day or so ago your were threatening to quit the forum. I'm so glad you did not do so.

 

I also appreciate your *scientific* approach for the most part.

 

But there is no scientist available when someone has an encounter for the most part.

 

If the existence of BF is ever going to be proven it will take a body on a slab or some undeniable DNA evidence.

 

Most witnesses are not prepared for either and I think that should be taken into consideration.

 

Don't know why in the world someone would subject themself to the scrutiny that ultimately comes when they relate their sighting or experience.

 

I think that has to be taken into consideration also.

Edited October 30, 2014 by HRPuffnstuff

[Guest]

Thank you but its really not necessary. It paid the bills and like all life experiences it always comes to an end at some point. Speaking from the heart, I say you learn to close the book and move forward. While I turn my focus on this oddity, the things I've seen, touched, smelled remain etched in my being like well, like gum under shoes on a hot summer's day. It just stays with you in memory.

 

I suspect, and this purely my guess, there are many more LEO types watching this board. There many more that have experiences of their own who for reasons known only to them cannot step forward. Some will and maybe they will.

 

My final hurrah came while searching for a person missing since the early 1980s. It was a matter of making things right, looking to the last good deed and helping an old women find peace in her life before she passes. It was a personal mission. It preoccupied my thoughts my entire 25 year career. In my travels I made connection with a lady who I never met before. She told me things .... I took her conversation under advisement. One of the last things she told me was this: "Somebody is looking for someone ... I cannot see them they're not here but they know you're looking for them. They hear you calling...," I was stunned when we parted. I awoke one night feeling a sense of urgency and called the mother of the missing victim long distance asking her recount everything she remembered of the day they went missing. When she finished weeping I made a promise.

 

In the following 20 months I used up vacation and spent all my off time reading, researching and calling in old favors. With the help of DNA swab tests and little gumshoe effort, I made good on my promise to find and reunite the remains with the family .... I was at work had lunch with some friends returned back and announced I retired...  

 

While digging and rooting around in all of the hundreds of missing persons and unidentified persons I began noticing large numbers of cases around State and National parks. Of course I was interested in the interstate thorough ways and not the parks, but seeing them it gave me a moment to pause and think. I shoved it off far in the recesses of my memory and moved on. Having new found time I met a man doing the bigfoot talk circuit around the Midwest and went out with him several times and seen what I set out to find. I don't need to guess or wonder if it is real .... For me it is why it is and what it is. Being amongst like minded people assures me everyday that what I seen was an epiphany of illusion but a real living breathing creature. That is it in a nutshell...     

Edited October 30, 2014 by Gumshoeye

[MarkGlasgow]

I get 'accused' of being a 'Footer' and 'Bleever' often. 

 

In reality I'm neither. I'm more akin to one of these 'fence-sitters'. I've never been lucky enough to encounter a Sasquatch but the multitude of sightings, footprint evidence and a handful of video/photographic/audio pieces lead me to think there is something worth investigating here.

[Guest]

Yeah, I agree.

 

While there are some fantastical tales like BF piloting UFO's, hopping freight trains, and chain smoking, it is hard to look at all of the sighting reports from credible folks and just totally dismiss them as fantasy, paredoila, or misidentifications.

 

Even when I was on the fence, I felt this way.

 

There is just too much there for there not to be something there IMHO.