A Few Words Concerning Bigfoot At The Half Century Mark

[Guest Crowlogic]

The fact that you can mention "Justin Semja" and "science" in the same post Crow is the only confirmation I need that you are a hopeless case. I don't think you have any ambitions to be better informed, and I believe you are comfortable in the role. Laziness and intellectual incuriosity are not things to be proud of or displaying for all to view on the internet, even anonymously. You should really just stop and salvage what you can of your dignity. It is becoming painful to watch.

Oh I guess Sykes botched the test sample?  Perhaps Justine was just a pawn in someone's game?  What?  What exactly is the lad outside of  a guy who seems to like beer?  Life without blinders my boy, try life without blinders and take off those bigfoot tinted glasses.  The song remains the same ....Guys in the woods finding all sorts of stuff and guys in lab coats telling them to back to the woods for meaningful evidence.  All that absence of evidence is building and ever stronger case for evidence of absence.  

[Guest]

The PGF may be real to you but that isn't a universal within the community, pretending otherwise is disingenuous. For example, the members of the NAWAC disagree, strongly, on the PGF.

Most sighting reports are real? In what sense? This seems completely unsupportable.

Most casts are real meaning you think most casts are of "real" sasquatches? And yet there's never, ever a single hair which has been shed along the way or scat or any other physical trace evidence left.

Magical thinking running rampant today and not a step closer to getting the animal accepted by science or the larger world. Not a single step. Carry on in the echo chamber folks just remember, what you consider evidence - isn't.

Oh hi Kit

[Bodhi]

How do we infer somebody here on this forum has been the granted such all-knowing authority and intellect of the highest order to proclaim all Bigfoot /Sasquatch prints casts are fake or all reports of these things are in fact campfire tales and fairy-tales without showing meaningful studies and scientific peer reviewed reports to stand behind such a claim?

 

Great question, but I've never stated that all casts are fakes. Check the thread. I've restated, repeatedly, Dr. Grover Krantz's lament that due to fakes attempting to establish any useful database of casts is incredibly difficult if not impossible. For my part unless casts are used to advance the search/discovery of the animal they are nothing more than curiosities. My personal belief is that it is unlikely that sasquatch is an actual animal and so I doubt casts but I have no way of knowing that for certain and I've never claimed they are all fakes. It's not the job of skeptics to prove the negative anyway, it is the job of those who are proponents to provide evidence which backs up their claims. Asking skeptics to prove a negative? That's not exactly how it works and I think you are aware of that, so I wonder about your motives in advancing such a proposal.

 

More to point, the fact that others have reported things accurately or inaccurately does not magically make anything reported before, since or after more untruthful or more faked.  I don’t live my personal life in a world of fakeness and I feel sorry for anyone that sees the world around them with jaundice eye that sees only suspicion and fakeness. Until you can provide a study showing that reports of other print casts -- are as consistently misinformed as those of which you claim, it will not prove a thing.  

First, you understand that it's not just me who is skeptical of sasquatch right? You understand that society and science, by VAST majorities, believe this to all be a myth. So be as patronizing as you wish, but process the fact that to believe in sasquatch is to believe in fringe thinking. 

 

Second, It isn't the job of science to disprove every claim of proponents. Those who believe that casts are real have the burden of proving their case and their colleagues have the responsibility to critically examine and test those claims. But no one has even been able to look at casts and come up with anything to help the field researchers in the quests.

Beyond looking at a cast and saying, "this looks real" what has been done with cast "evidence"? I would suggest nothing because Dr. Krantz was right, casts cannot be used to further the search for sasquatch. And if they cannot further the search of what good are they? A print or trackway is ultimately pointless unless it leads to further discoveries (a hair, a piece of scat, a den, etc.), correct?

 

And lastly and again, I've never claimed that all casts are fake. I've not seen all casts and it was never the point to begin with. As the name of the thread suggests my curiosity was what has been done with casts since the PGF that has advanced the search for animal one iota and how has the community addressed the concerns of the "father of sasquatch casts", Dr. Krantz.

I personally feel that if a trackway, or portion of a trackway, were treated like a crime scene any trace evidence which exists in favor of the animal could be collected. There are ways to improve and discuss those possibilities but instead no one will even admit there is a problem.

I am hopeful that I will find serious people here who were interested in the discovery of the animal but, in general, it's been a bust. I had really thought that since one of the biggies of the NAWAC had sort of started this forum this would be a grounded place but instead I think I understand why he has, mostly, divorced himself from the forums.

Oh hi Kit

So, I'm assuming you think I'm someone else. Is there anything I can do to disabuse you of that notion? If not, there's really no point in discussing the matter further.

[Guest]

How do we infer somebody here on this forum has been the granted such all-knowing authority and intellect of the highest order to proclaim all Bigfoot /Sasquatch prints casts are fake or all reports of these things are in fact campfire tales and fairy-tales without showing meaningful studies and scientific peer reviewed reports to stand behind such a claim?

 

Great question, but I've never stated that all casts are fakes. Check the thread. I've restated, repeatedly, Dr. Grover Krantz's lament that due to fakes attempting to establish any useful database of casts is incredibly difficult if not impossible. For my part unless casts are used to advance the search/discovery of the animal they are nothing more than curiosities. My personal belief is that it is unlikely that sasquatch is an actual animal and so I doubt casts but I have no way of knowing that for certain and I've never claimed they are all fakes. It's not the job of skeptics to prove the negative anyway, it is the job of those who are proponents to provide evidence which backs up their claims. Asking skeptics to prove a negative? That's not exactly how it works and I think you are aware of that, so I wonder about your motives in advancing such a proposal.

 

More to point, the fact that others have reported things accurately or inaccurately does not magically make anything reported before, since or after more untruthful or more faked.  I don’t live my personal life in a world of fakeness and I feel sorry for anyone that sees the world around them with jaundice eye that sees only suspicion and fakeness. Until you can provide a study showing that reports of other print casts -- are as consistently misinformed as those of which you claim, it will not prove a thing.  

First, you understand that it's not just me who is skeptical of sasquatch right? You understand that society and science, by VAST majorities, believe this to all be a myth. So be as patronizing as you wish, but process the fact that to believe in sasquatch is to believe in fringe thinking. 

 

Second, It isn't the job of science to disprove every claim of proponents. Those who believe that casts are real have the burden of proving their case and their colleagues have the responsibility to critically examine and test those claims. But no one has even been able to look at casts and come up with anything to help the field researchers in the quests.

Beyond looking at a cast and saying, "this looks real" what has been done with cast "evidence"? I would suggest nothing because Dr. Krantz was right, casts cannot be used to further the search for sasquatch. And if they cannot further the search of what good are they? A print or trackway is ultimately pointless unless it leads to further discoveries (a hair, a piece of scat, a den, etc.), correct?

 

And lastly and again, I've never claimed that all casts are fake. I've not seen all casts and it was never the point to begin with. As the name of the thread suggests my curiosity was what has been done with casts since the PGF that has advanced the search for animal one iota and how has the community addressed the concerns of the "father of sasquatch casts", Dr. Krantz.

I personally feel that if a trackway, or portion of a trackway, were treated like a crime scene any trace evidence which exists in favor of the animal could be collected. There are ways to improve and discuss those possibilities but instead no one will even admit there is a problem.

I am hopeful that I will find serious people here who were interested in the discovery of the animal but, in general, it's been a bust. I had really thought that since one of the biggies of the NAWAC had sort of started this forum this would be a grounded place but instead I think I understand why he has, mostly, divorced himself from the forums.

So, I'm assuming you think I'm someone else. Is there anything I can do to disabuse you of that notion? If not, there's really no point in discussing the matter further.

 

So if I ask a question I suddenly become patronizing? That’s my point, where does the skeptic on the this forum become title holder and sole decision maker, the guardian and conservator if you will over rules of evidence with special pleading as you say to hold dominion over determining what questions will be asked or to determine what is fake and what is not? Where does that come from? 

 

So let’s be very clear maligning people to crazy town people, spreading campfire tales, and other fanciful versions of unstable people is not patronizing but me asking a direct question is?  That is the very type of thing that does not make any sense and it will not ingratiate friends and influence people. That's the magical and meaningful truth of it, if truth be told. 

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Guest DWA]

I would similarly note that the propensity of some here to engage in that same magical thinking and special pleading to dismiss literally dump truck loads of evidence they've been presented with merely because by refusing to see it they hope they can make it go away is equally hilarious.  

 

The PGF is real.  Most track casts are real.  Most sighting reports are real.   That's facts.  Ignoring that is not counter-argument, it is merely denial, it is pre-school "nuh uh" mentality presented because frankly, the scoftics have nothing better to offer.  

 

Game.  Set.  Match.  The other team left with the trophy.  The crowd and the refs went home.  Somebody turned the lights out.   The poor witless scoftics are still on the sidelines trying to come up with a 5th down play.    Funny.  Stupid, but funny. 

 

MIB

MIB, you keep coming up with these, we are flat gonna start *paying* you.

I am never ever gonna understand this "skeptical" refrain:  "Who made you the all-knowing scientist who flat knows bigfoot's real?"

 

And yet they have zero problem believing that they have "been the granted such all-knowing authority and intellect of the highest order to proclaim all Bigfoot /Sasquatch prints casts are fake or all reports of these things are in fact campfire tales and fairy-tales without showing meaningful studies and scientific peer reviewed reports to stand behind such a claim[.]"

 

I don't get it either, Gumshoeye, and there's no point in trying to figure it out.  Mushmouth shoutin' is mushmouth shoutin'.

 

SCIENCE SAYS!  The evidence says what it says, until it is *shown beyond doubt to be something else.*  This is why science pursues inconclusive evidence:  because it must be presumed to say the X it appears to be saying, until is is *proven* to be saying Y instead.

[WSA]

Really...i love this. When they squeal like a stuck piggie I mean. As sure as this river don't go to Aintry, there are thems that are so tucked inside of their security binkies they would soil themselves if'n they would poke a naked toe over the edge of the bed...BOO! Puts me in mind ol' D-whatsits...another know- nuthin' in search of a life. Where is that boy anyways? He was as much fun as these haircuts in search of a clue, ya know?

(Speaking of things Dickie, just learned today one of my law school buddies from C'nooga I even clerked with back when is a nephew of the said randy and arrow-pierced hillbilly of ignominy. Like Dude! You couldn't have told me this sooner? Well....just Uncle Bill to him. Wait though. I feel a connection here......)

a.

?

Really...i love this. When they squeal like a stuck piggie I mean. As sure as this river don't go to Aintry, there are thems that are so tucked inside of their security binkies they would soil themselves if'n they would poke a naked toe over the edge of the bed...BOO! Puts me in mind ol' D-whatsits...another know- nuthin' in search of a life. Where is that boy anyways? He was as much fun as these haircuts in search of a clue, ya know?

(Speaking of things Dickie, just learned today one of my law school buddies from C'nooga I even clerked with back when is a nephew of the said randy and arrow-pierced hillbilly of ignominy. Like Dude! You couldn't have told me this sooner? Well....just Uncle Bill to him. Wait though. I feel a connection here......)

Android comes undone....might need to take it on a canoe paddle^^^^^

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Just so we're clear on this...

 

No monkey?

 

Loud and clear.

[Bodhi]

So if I ask a question I suddenly become patronizing? That’s my point, where does the skeptic on the this forum become title holder and sole decision maker, the guardian and conservator if you will over rules of evidence with special pleading as you say to hold dominion over determining what questions will be asked or to determine what is fake and what is not? Where does that come from? 

 

So let’s be very clear maligning people to crazy town people, spreading campfire tales, and other fanciful versions of unstable people is not patronizing but me asking a direct question is?  That is the very type of thing that does not make any sense and it will not ingratiate friends and influence people. That's the magical and meaningful truth of it, if truth be told. 

This is you being patronizing: " I don’t live my personal life in a world of fakeness and I feel sorry for anyone that sees the world around them with jaundice eye that sees only suspicion and fakeness" or do you really feel sorry for me?

How about you give an honest answer to the meat of my reply rather than pretending that you've been wounded. Or don't, whatever.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Bodhi

[Guest DWA]

Consideration for intellectual decency would have made many stop by now, guys.

 

Squatchy?

 

Monkey.

 

Just 'coz you don't know it doesn't mean we don't.  Not sure I've seen more absurd than "you have to show it TO ME..."  Um, no we don't.  Just making *that* clear.

Do you have any idea how silly you sound to people who have *seen* one...?

[Guest]

@ Bodhi - Now this is an interesting corollary: There is somehow something intolerable about making an observation of people who see fakeness and suspicion around corner, every nook and cranny yet calling people crazy who see Sasquatches implying they are arbiters of fairy tales and campfire tales is acceptable, no sir I don’t see your point.  

 

Fact is I don’t see any name mentioned in that observation do you?  Attack the argument not the person.   

Edited June 30, 2015 by Gumshoeye

[Bodhi]

@ Bodhi - Now this is an interesting corollary: There is somehow something intolerable about making an observation of people who see fakeness and suspicion around corner, every nook and cranny yet calling people crazy who see Sasquatches implying they are arbiters of fairy tales and campfire tales is acceptable, no sir I don’t see your point.  

 

Fact is I don’t see any name mentioned in that observation do you?  Attack the argument not the person.   

willful ignorance then, par for the course.

 

As far as not seeing any name mentioned, you were quoting my post and directly responding to me. disengenuous.

 

And again, refusal to address the point. You have nothing to contribute so you make the conscious choice to play games.

 

ignore.

[southernyahoo]

 

And lastly and again, I've never claimed that all casts are fake. I've not seen all casts and it was never the point to begin with. As the name of the thread suggests my curiosity was what has been done with casts since the PGF that has advanced the search for animal one iota and how has the community addressed the concerns of the "father of sasquatch casts", Dr. Krantz.

I personally feel that if a trackway, or portion of a trackway, were treated like a crime scene any trace evidence which exists in favor of the animal could be collected. There are ways to improve and discuss those possibilities but instead no one will even admit there is a problem.

 

 

I think I can address this. I think there are a number of researchers who could potentially spot the fakes and have the time on occasion when they see a real track to explore the area and generate further evidence.  The problem is that even if you can spot the real tracks, it doesn't mean you'll get to see a BF, if that's what you mean by "advance the search". Tracks might have some foot detail but they aren't likely to have much biological trace, and if there were, who has the resources to test every little thing from the crime scene? You don't get resources like that until there is proof by some other means.

 

Other trace like tree breaks have produced hair samples, though none of those have yielded great ape DNA other than "human" and lots of it. You have to be careful what you think Bigfoot is, because it may skew your perception of what is a negative or positive result.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Just so we're clear on this...

 

No monkey?

 

Loud and clear.

No monkey is correctamundo!  Every time the "heavy hitters" launch an attack on me I am reminded that there is no monkey.  No matter how they slice and dice it the monkey is not present and accounted for.  I am not surprised that the heaviest of hitters hasn't deemed able to issue any true monkey data and heavy hitter Jr. hasn't either.  Oh because the monkey must be found on an individual basis sort of like in Buddhism, you will know the monkey from within.   But they have the goods, you know they do because they say so.  Of course someone is not entitled to their monkey data in spite of the fact that if it's that good it might seal the deal in their favor.  Now isn't this what Todd Standing did when it got too hot in bigfooot kitchen.  He took his monkey and went home.  Now consider for a moment that real science does not withhold discoveries because folks are not directly on the knowledge road.  No sir, Not a chance in Cleveland than I'm going to be sittin' atop a Soyuz rocket bound for the ISS.  But NASA is quite generous with sharing works of the ISS with the world.  

 

Frankly I'd rather not have the information those knowers claim to have, I've reached escape velocity and who needs the drag of maybe monkey when no monkey is ticket out.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

@ Bodhi - Now this is an interesting corollary: There is somehow something intolerable about making an observation of people who see fakeness and suspicion around corner, every nook and cranny yet calling people crazy who see Sasquatches implying they are arbiters of fairy tales and campfire tales is acceptable, no sir I don’t see your point.  

 

One thing I note about bigfoot skeptics is their extreme proficiency at identifying black kettles.  Seeing fakeness and suspicion around every corner is wearing blinkers through life.  I've play-tested this one more than often enough so don't bother arguing it with me.

 

I should add that seeing fakeness and suspicion around every corner is a decidedly *anti*-scientific approach, could not be more so.

[WSA]

Squatchy....I think I hear banjos. I think you done got turned around....

And you know, if the sum of my ignorance could be summed up in a trite phrase such as that, I believe I just might have the sense bestowed on a hot-house turkey to just  S.T.H.U.