Guest DWA Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 We're better than 20 years into the internet age which is almost half of the modern bigfoot era. True the internet has made it easier to find information but the quality of that information is scarcely better than the preinternet. I'ts maybe a bit more visibly entertaining but not much is new. Entertainment and newness are not what one looks at; continued consistency of reported characters is; it's happening; it's not anything but people relating honestly what they're seeing; but one would have to have read them and thought about it to get that. Unless you have a body or an indisputable part of one than the usual evidence is if not disinformation it's non information. Not true. Science doesn't work that way. How could it, when proof would be the only way to advance scientific knowledge? Answer: it isn't. We have such a complete picture of the animal that any alternatives to it being real can be handily dismissed by the informed. Whether the uninformed are convinced is immaterial; science, not scientists, is the arbiter here.
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I agree with you DWA, but who speaks for science?
MIB Posted May 27, 2015 Moderator Posted May 27, 2015 "science" speaks for itself if it does its job. So would the scientific community, but what they say today seems at odds. When "Science" isn't actually performing "science", we have something of a problem getting past dogmatic attachment to the current institutional paradigm to learn what the truth really is. MIB
wiiawiwb Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 In order for the skeptics' position, that BF does not exist, to be true, every encounter, sighting, footprint, trackway, report, and Native American belief, must be a hoax or misidentification. Not most, not many, ALL. In order for proponents position to be true, only one needs to be real. 1
Guest Divergent1 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) But which one? It would be the one I saw if I ever see one. I don't care what a proponent or a skeptic thinks about what I believe, do you guys? Edited May 28, 2015 by Divergent1
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 An actual skeptic who's well-read on the subject wouldn't claim that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Those who say that it can't exist aren't actually being skeptical because they're taking a position without reasonable evidence. There isn't anything suggesting that there can't be a small population of Bigfoot-like animals out there. Every legitimate skeptic I've seen has so far been open to the idea of Bigfoot.
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 An actual skeptic who's well-read on the subject wouldn't claim that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Those who say that it can't exist aren't actually being skeptical because they're taking a position without reasonable evidence. There isn't anything suggesting that there can't be a small population of Bigfoot-like animals out there. Every legitimate skeptic I've seen has so far been open to the idea of Bigfoot. While I have personally dismissed the reality of bigfoot it can still exist somewhere. The thing that convinces me to not believe is the scale in which bigfoot seems to exist. I've said it before that when it was a PNW inhabitant it was far more plausible. However bigfoot in the burbs is well past the line that crosses into silliness.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 But the 'Footers in the 'Burbs will tell you they're real -- the seen 'em. You can't throw that baby out with the bathwater because you don't agree with the Location. That there's an encounter report. It should not be questioned. DWA says people don't make reports up, so Bigfoot MUST exist regardless where the reports come from. If I told you I had a sighting at 100 feet in Oakville would my sighting be dismissed because of the location or my character? If ole Rog got a pass on his character then Squatchy gets the same. But I didn't see a Bigfoot. No one has. Ridiculous when you consider the alternatives.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) If ole Rog got a pass on his character then Squatchy gets the same. Sure thing, but you'll have to see one first. Your sighting won't be dismissed simply because it happened near an urban area. In regard to urban reports, the way they've been able to avoid people in heavily forested areas suggests that they could probably do the same in the woods near cities if they wanted to. It's the same sort of thing anywhere you go. The occasional rare sighting, but no body or clear video obtained. There's also reason to believe that Sasquatch aren't normal animals that migrated around the continent, but that's probably a different discussion. While I have personally dismissed the reality of bigfoot it can still exist somewhere. It sounds like you haven't dismissed it. Edited May 28, 2015 by OntarioSquatch
Guest diana swampbooger Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 In the family Hominidae, Squatch is plausible. What is not plausible is homo sapiens. We don't have body hair(where did the hairlessness come from), we breed like rabbits, newborns are helpless, we lie coupled with abstract thought & hidden agendas(yeah...not gonna go there) blahblahbla Got to say it, us humans are like the platypus, not plausible but we certainly have convinced ourselves we are entitled to be here.
southernyahoo Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 In response to non believer thread here is the counterpoint for the proponents to ponder. So far with the possible exception of the PGF every well known publicized bigfoot event of the past 40 years has been determined to be a hoax. http://hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/bigfoot I would beg to differ, they haven't all been proven a hoax. People can find some reason to disbelieve just about anything, and or believe just about anything. The evidence speaks to people in different ways, and not always through the cold eye of science. The folly is in trying to control what people believe. Personal experience, intuition and the collective picture the body of evidence presents will always compel certain individuals who have faith that not all people who claim to have encountered BF are lying or mistaken. I think the BFskeptic's version of proof should be no different than what the proponents would be held to, and not confused with the possibility of a hoax. 1
Guest DWA Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I agree with you DWA, but who speaks for science? The people *doing it.* Meldrum and Krantz and Bindernagel have made the virtually conclusive case. Just those three. (And they corroborated what a number of us had already brought to the table by the time we read them.) And it remains unaddressed by people who think they know what science is about. The people *doing it* have always been the spokesmen for science. The people denying or ignoring it...not so much.
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Sure thing, but you'll have to see one first. Your sighting won't be dismissed simply because it happened near an urban area. In regard to urban reports, the way they've been able to avoid people in heavily forested areas suggests that they could probably do the same in the woods near cities if they wanted to. It's the same sort of thing anywhere you go. The occasional rare sighting, but no body or clear video obtained. There's also reason to believe that Sasquatch aren't normal animals that migrated around the continent, but that's probably a different discussion. It sounds like you haven't dismissed it. I have not dismissed it's possibility as I have not dismissed the Tasmanian Tiger. Slim indeed and neither is substantial enough to consider actual.
salubrious Posted May 28, 2015 Moderator Posted May 28, 2015 What the proponent fails to grasp is the weight of the hoax tradition that has plagued the issue from the beginning. Every stitch of circumstantial evidence is weakened by two very oppressing factors. The first is the hoaxing factor and the other is the absence of proof of the animal itself. Proponents don't fail to grasp that. We deal with that all the time. I saw two close up (about 8 feet) in very good lighting so I am a proponent out of experience. But I concede that the hoaxing thing is very real. My take on that is aspiring comics that have no idea how worn the joke really is. They saw something the rest of us can't comprehend. But they can never prove it. It's an much intimate encounter in which the proponent could not have been mistaken; they know what they saw and it was a Bigfoot. ^^ In fact, this. So genuine finds are always made by unassuming folks who prefer to deprive the world of the gold they have discovered? This makes little sense. Roger Patterson took it public and he may have had the most believable evidence anyone has ever had. However it also puts him in the huckster category since that's where you find the public marketeers. Most likely beyond contention evidence simply does not exist and if you're going to impress the jaded masses you'll have to shall we say augment the truth. Not always, but quite often. Stay away from the absolutes and this gets easier to understand. I have a photo of a footprint I found. I posted it on this site. I know for a fact that no person was walking around where I found the associated trackway- you would have to be plain nuts to be in a place like that barefoot. When I posted the photo (which had focus problems I did not detect until much later- cell phones are not the best at focus in poor lighting), I literally got lacerated as if I was trying to commit a hoax. Its easy to imagine this happening to other people and under such conditions very easy to imagine that they would refuse to come forward- especially if it might affect their reputation (BF, UFOs and ghosts being the 3 big ones that can brand you as a nutbag)! IOW it make a lot of sense to 'deprive the world of the gold they have discovered'. I know I won't be showing any evidence I find if I am lucky enough to do so again... who needs the heartache??
Guest Crowlogic Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I would beg to differ, they haven't all been proven a hoax. People can find some reason to disbelieve just about anything, and or believe just about anything. The evidence speaks to people in different ways, and not always through the cold eye of science. The folly is in trying to control what people believe. Personal experience, intuition and the collective picture the body of evidence presents will always compel certain individuals who have faith that not all people who claim to have encountered BF are lying or mistaken. I think the BFskeptic's version of proof should be no different than what the proponents would be held to, and not confused with the possibility of a hoax. Which big bigfoot events have not been hoaxes?
Recommended Posts