So. What Happens When Sasquatch Is Proven, And We All Know The Skeptics Were Wrong All Along?

[southernyahoo]

Yes but suburbia.... we have had few bigfoot flaps around here... we also had a werewolf flap. Bigfoot turned out to be a perverted neighbor peeping tom and the werewolf was a guy in a costume.... Funny thing was once people started reporting the number of reports grew exponentially. The power of suggestion kicked in. Someone reported seeing a were wolf climbing the wall of our local hospital.

 

It's also possible that people feel more free to tell their story once they see how it is received. You seem to hear about a lot of reports, is that because they report to the media, law enforcement or wildlife agencies in your area?

[Martin]

^

From time to time there are reports in the local paper. The werewolf made the radio. It was quite alarming for some folks.

They were years ago.

[southernyahoo]

If you were to go deer hunting nearest to your home, how far of a drive would it be?

[Trogluddite]

While I apologize for my intemperate and poorly thought out post yesterday, since deleted, I believe that my question still stands as a valid one in this thread.  

 

This thread posits a paradigm shift (the discovery of scientifically or publicly acceptable proof that Bigfoot exists) and then asks what the reaction should be to that event.  

 

I believe that the PGF caught a real, living, breathing Bigfoot on film.  I'm led to this conclusion by much of the analysis found in the Film/Video forum (particularly Bill Munns' and Sweaty Yetis' work, but there are many others who have added well-thought out analysis.  I also believe that the validity of the film is shown beyond a reasonable doubt and that, for now, claims that it was hoaxed fall into the realm of fanciful or theoretical doubts.  (Jury instructions caution that even if jurists can construct a fanciful or theoretical explanation for an event, that any doubt (of guilt) must be reasonable.)   What happens, theoretically, if unequivocal contemporaneous evidence comes out that proves that Patterson, Gimlin, and Bob Heironimus (sp) were the luckiest hoaxers in the history of mankind?  (Feel free to insert any other generally accepted proof if you don't want to use the PGF as an example.)  

 

What happens then when we know, unequivocally, that the skeptics were right all along? 

[Terry]

Wait a minute.  That doesn't work.

 

10 years after his death, the executor opens the envelope. Inside is a short, notarized statement that reads, "Sorry, folks, it was Bob in the suit.  The suit's over at Al's place."  

 

What will the proponents say then?  

 

The proponents will say the Govt. put the letter there and happily continue to post fake encounters and YouTube films.  The paranormals will say it can't be true because their furry friends continues to mind speak to them and hang out in their yard.  I'm afraid we're stuck with bf for a long, long time.  

 

t.

[Trogluddite]

^^

Oops.  I thought it was deleted and would have understood if it had been.  No need for some of my intemperate language in that one. 

[Martin]

Southern :

There are deer turkey and hogs in my neighborhood from time to time. I'm <10 miles from good hunting land.

Funny story about the hogs. Several people in my neighborhood reported black bears and we're alarmed. The went to the home owner association and demanded action. They were very passionate.

Game and fish came out and found the hogs trapped them and guess what... no more bears.

That's a true story less than 1 year old. I knew they were hogs before they saw the bears because of the rooting.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Martin

[Bodhi]

While I apologize for my intemperate and poorly thought out post yesterday, since deleted, I believe that my question still stands as a valid one in this thread.  

 

This thread posits a paradigm shift (the discovery of scientifically or publicly acceptable proof that Bigfoot exists) and then asks what the reaction should be to that event.  

 

What happens then when we know, unequivocally, that the skeptics were right all along? 

As a skeptic I do not think there is anything which can dissuade believers. Belief is basically conviction/acceptance without proof so the search for proof/evidence we discuss here is unnecessary for many.

 

They believe, and for them, that is sufficient. Asking for proof is almost antithetical to belief.

[Guest]

Why dont you get busy? We have skeptical members in Project Grendel that contribute greatly..........

Besides its fun and gets you off the couch and into the woods with friends.

 

 

why go out  looking when 99% of reports are from motorists, people doing normal activities around their residence or an outdoor activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking etc?

 

would it be just as useful to have a cell phone camera at the ready? Cell phone cameras are ubiquitous these days.I drive down the road and every 4th car is texting grrrrr.

 

Why not a rash of  clear, non-blob squatch documented sightings with all the cell phones in use?

[southernyahoo]

 

Southern :

There are deer turkey and hogs in my neighborhood from time to time. I'm <10 miles from good hunting land.

Funny story about the hogs. Several people in my neighborhood reported black bears and we're alarmed. The went to the home owner association and demanded action. They were very passionate.

Game and fish came out and found the hogs trapped them and guess what... no more bears.

That's a true story less than 1 year old. I knew they were hogs before they saw the bears because of the rooting.

 

I figured you had to be close to wild habitat, and closer than I am for sure. I can see how hogs and bears can be confused. I've seen plenty of hogs in my southern expeditions, but not one bear so far, not even tracks and not even in southern La. where there is suppose to be a population of them. One thing is constant in my experience, you'll hear what wildlife is there 10 times more often than you'll see the actual animals.

[SWWASAS]

While we're in the realm of pointless hypotheticals, 

 

((And this is all hypothetical))

 

Bob Gimlin passes away.  Among his estate is a sealed envelope which is not to be opened until 10 years after his death.  The executor of his estate places the letter in a safe deposit box in a bank in Seattle.  The years pass.  The night before the 10th anniversary of his death, the Cascadia subduction zone finally gives away, creating a tsunami that devastates Seattle and leaves no trace of the bank.  What will the proponents say then?

 

Wait a minute.  That doesn't work.

 

10 years after his death, the executor opens the envelope. Inside is a short, notarized statement that reads, "Sorry, folks, it was Bob in the suit.  The suit's over at Al's place."  

 

What will the proponents say then?

If Bob were to recant his witness report ever it would have been years ago when towns people were harassing him and his wife over his sighting. They could not even go to the local bank without the teller making fun of them. I get the impression he thought about recanting just to get the townspeople off their back. Certainly his wife wanted him to. But talking to the man, I know he would never have done that, because it would put his integrity about everything else in question. He talked to me personally at length about this very topic one day and how hurtful it was to him to have people he had known for years not believe him. Such things are typical of a BF witness.

[MIB]

If Bob were to recant his witness report

 

... it would not matter.    I saw what I saw, both times, and Bob wasn't there.   If some scoffer thinks my "knowing" is based on Bob's testimony they are sorely wrong.    Same for you, Randy ... if Bob were to recant his story, it would not change what you've seen, heard, (photographed ), experienced, etc one iota either.

 

This is not some shaky one legged table that's only propped up by a single piece of evidence.   There are, by my best guestimate, about 125,000 BF reports lodged with the various research groups who have web sites collecting them.   Bob's report is just one.   Trying to make it more than it is amounts to allowing it to become a straw man for the scoftics.

 

I believe Bob.  Met him, talked a little ... I'd bet on him telling the truth.  However, my "knowing" is not dependent on his story.  

 

MIB 

Edited August 7, 2015 by MIB

[Guest DWA]

Not only your knowing....but a lot of other people's.  (Including mine, based on much more evidence than that film.)

 

Bigfoot skeptics seem focused on Winning the Argument.  Which of course is irrelevant.  There are many reasons for somebody to do something like that (although at this late date, you can bet more than a Cancun vacation that Bob isn't gonna).  I'd say to Bob:  cool, man, but the evidence says you are lying...unless you can tell me how a human got into a suit a human...can't.

As soon as a RayBob HieronyWallace pipes up, they're all over SEE SEE SEE I TOLD YOU I TOLD YOU!  If somebody said that Lenin (or Lennon) came to him in a dream and told him sasquatch wasn't real, I suspect bigfoot skeptics would be all over that too.

 

This is what happens when one lives in denial and doesn't understand how to think about stuff.

[Martin]

... (photographed ).....

Bet you won't show it......

[Guest DWA]

I don't know why anyone would show it to you, actually.  I mean, the spite alone.