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

[Bodhi]

It was in a camp situation and I do not recall a vehicle was involved. It was night and Standing was there so I am not sure it would pass my sniff test either. But never the less Meldrum seems to believe it was authentic. Personally I would not believe any encounter if Standing was present and picked the field location, which probably surprises you.

The "smelly" thing about that sighting is that Meldrum had to leave almost immediately afterwards and then Standing took him back the next day. It was then that Standing and Meldrum discovered, I think, some prints. This was all around the same time as the Standing muppets/bigfoot north thing.

[Guest]

Gimlin passes away.......

 

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.

 

Not gonna happen. Bob H is proven to not be the right size and proven to not have the right limb proportions. He's also proven to not know anything about the film site and the filming itself.

[Trogluddite]

^^

 

Not the point - the point of the question is what will proponents do if a hallowed piece of bigfoot history is unequivocally proven to be fabricated.  It could be Joe Dokes in a Patty suit or the Sierra Sounds guys showing how they created the recordings by playing the White Album backwards or someone from BFRO coming out and admitting that they write their own reports whenever there's a slowdown.  Whatever hypothetical one chooses, it's merely the mirror image of the hypothetical used to start this thread. 

[Bodhi]

^^

 

Not the point - the point of the question is what will proponents do if a hallowed piece of bigfoot history is unequivocally proven to be fabricated.  It could be Joe Dokes in a Patty suit or the Sierra Sounds guys showing how they created the recordings by playing the White Album backwards or someone from BFRO coming out and admitting that they write their own reports whenever there's a slowdown.  Whatever hypothetical one chooses, it's merely the mirror image of the hypothetical used to start this thread. 

Sometimes Trogluddite, they really understand your point and choose to pretend that they do not because to address your point is too painful to consider.

[SWWASAS]

The "smelly" thing about that sighting is that Meldrum had to leave almost immediately afterwards and then Standing took him back the next day. It was then that Standing and Meldrum discovered, I think, some prints. This was all around the same time as the Standing muppets/bigfoot north thing.

As I recall Meldrum had to leave the next morning and it was Standing that found footprints on the slope that Meldrum had seen the dark shape moving. Standing presented pictures of that at the Sasquatch summit. What I didn't like was Standing telling Meldrum what Meldrum had seen. Standing did not see it but felt comfortable interpreting it for Meldrum. That could just be Standings way of inflating his self importance or it could be he knew what Meldrum had to have seen because his buddy walked past camp in a suit. That is the danger with having Standing or someone like him pick the site. Too much chance for monkey business.

[MIB]

^^

 

Not the point . 

 

Understood.  I got your point.  Did you pay attention to my answer?  

 

Repeat: it doesn't matter.   My "knowing" is not dependent on evidence presented by other witnesses.  All they offer is some context, not the core content.  I saw what I saw.   If every single piece of evidence gathered by everyone else fell, I still saw what I saw.   That isn't negotiable, debatable, or subject to your approval.   Get over it.

 

MIB

[Guest]

^^

 

Not the point - 

It is precisely the point. You cited a specific instance. An instance which is already 100% disproven.

Sometimes Trogluddite, they really understand your point and choose to pretend that they do not because to address your point is too painful to consider.

Painful? I don't live in any sasquatch country. I don't go around hoping to bump into a sasquatch. It's not on my radar away from the internet. What 'pain' is going to be inflicted on me if such and such is proven to be a fraud/hoax? I know all about 'pain' in the non bigfoot world. I don't think you have any idea what 'painful' means. After what I have been through in life, no I wouldn't feel any 'pain' over anything to do with the big hairy thing thousands of miles from where I live. 

Edited August 9, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Trogluddite]

Understood.  I got your point.  Did you pay attention to my answer?  

Yes I did - that's why I said I'm leaning toward belief, in part, due to the statements of individuals who have provided information about their encounters here and answered questions about them.  Y'all are different, however, than a large class of proponents who have not seen a bigfoot, but who cling almost religiously to everything that they think provides proof of existence.  You are one of several people who'd I'd expect to say, "Wow.  Never thought that particular piece of evidence was hoaxed or miss-identified but I still saw what I saw."  

 

It is precisely the point. You cited a specific instance. An instance which is already 100% disproven.

Painful? I don't live in any sasquatch country. I don't go around hoping to bump into a sasquatch. It's not on my radar away from the internet. What 'pain' is going to be inflicted on me if such and such is proven to be a fraud/hoax? I know all about 'pain' in the non bigfoot world. I don't think you have any idea what 'painful' means. After what I have been through in life, no I wouldn't feel any 'pain' over anything to do with the big hairy thing thousands of miles from where I live. 

 As I stated in my hypothetical -  (Feel free to insert any other generally accepted proof if you don't want to use the PGF as an example.) .  And to the extent that the PGF has not been proven to be a hoax to this point, it's not 100% because it is wholly possible that other evidence, which is unknown to the debate at this point, is still out there.  I'm a bit baffled about why you can't or won't answer a simple hypothetical question - if you believe in Bigfoot, what would you do if one of the cornerstones of your belief was unequivocally proven false?  That's the question, attempts to deflect or spin notwithstanding. 

[Guest DWA]

^^

 

Not the point - the point of the question is what will proponents do if a hallowed piece of bigfoot history is unequivocally proven to be fabricated.  It could be Joe Dokes in a Patty suit or the Sierra Sounds guys showing how they created the recordings by playing the White Album backwards or someone from BFRO coming out and admitting that they write their own reports whenever there's a slowdown.  Whatever hypothetical one chooses, it's merely the mirror image of the hypothetical used to start this thread. 

 

Answer:  to anyone truly acquainted with the evidence...it will not matter.  They understand that it is about volume and consistency, not tidbits.

 

Yes I did - that's why I said I'm leaning toward belief, in part, due to the statements of individuals who have provided information about their encounters here and answered questions about them.  Y'all are different, however, than a large class of proponents who have not seen a bigfoot, but who cling almost religiously to everything that they think provides proof of existence.  You are one of several people who'd I'd expect to say, "Wow.  Never thought that particular piece of evidence was hoaxed or miss-identified but I still saw what I saw."  

 

This idea that one has to have seen something to know that it exists beyond reasonable doubt is, well, not the way anyone truly operates.  Who saw that murder happening?  Who has seen a black hole?  How many people here have seen a blue whale in the flesh?  No.  All that stuff you have seen and read could be fabricated.  *It sure as hell could,* if everything on file for sasquatch is fabricated.  Which is what bigfoot skeptics never seem to get:  the way the world would have to be for them to be right would be a world they simply wouldn't recognize nor understand.  None of us would.

 

I've never seen one.  Doesn't matter.  The same body of evidence that has convinced everyone on record who shows a solid acquaintance with it tells me I don't have to see one to know they're real.  I know because of a solid exercise of scientific thought on a body of evidence.  Period.  Someone who has seen one may have a gut-level affirmation that I haven't yet.  But I know that for this to be anything other than it appears to be would be a first in our observation of the universe.

 

Aint' happenin'.

Edited August 9, 2015 by DWA

[Guest]

 

As I stated in my hypothetical -  (Feel free to insert any other generally accepted proof if you don't want to use the PGF as an example.) .  And to the extent that the PGF has not been proven to be a hoax to this point, it's not 100% because it is wholly possible that other evidence, which is unknown to the debate at this point, is still out there.  

 You mentioned Bob in the suit. That has been disproven.

 

 

I'm a bit baffled about why you can't or won't answer a simple hypothetical question -

 

 

Because it's not that important a question. I came in here to address your specific point about Bob in 'the suit'. You should have used a much much better example, not one that isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

 

if you believe in Bigfoot, what would you do if one of the cornerstones of your belief was unequivocally proven false?  That's the question, attempts to deflect or spin notwithstanding.

 

 

Not 'spinning' anything. You gave a dud example. One that isn't going to happen and I am bringing attention to that dud. No more. No less. Speaking of spinning, aren't YOU the one who 'spun' this thread around 180 degrees and lost the original point of it? Now why did you do that?

 

 

Anyway, what are you expecting me to say I would do if "a cornerstone of my belief was unequivocally proven false"? Slit my wrists? Go jump off a cliff? Take an overdose of pills?

 

I have already said quite clearly that after living life and seeing pain and disappointment throughout this life of mine, nothing to do with bigfoot is going to radically alter it. That goes for bigfoot being proven real too. If "a cornerstone of my belief was unequivocally proven false" I'd be disappointed a bit but I'd shrug my shoulders and move on. Sorry that isn't what you are hoping to hear. Oh well. That's life.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest DWA]

Never mind that in some cases - mine for example - the cornerstone is the structure, and chipping a chip away from the structure won't change what I think any more than chiseling a chip off a brick house makes the house uninhabitable.

[Guest]

^

It's typical how this thread has been hijacked and turned around 180.

This thread isn't about the proponent yet it seems to have ended up about the proponent. This is why I am questioning my future participation on this forum.

[Guest DWA]

^^^And me too.  JREF thinking should really stay there and not pollute the greater Internet.

 

There are folks here I really enjoy conversing with...but way too many who are dead set against thinking about this for me not to question if it's worth the trouble.

[Guest]

I'm thinking this more and more every day I come here.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[SWWASAS]

Yes is it pure thread high jacking again by the denialists. Read the title of the thread: "So what happens when Sasquatch is proven and we know the skeptics were wrong all along" How can the resident denialists read that tile and change it into another argument claiming it was Bob Gimlin wearing a suit which is totally opposite to the subject of the thread. I am starting to wonder if some of them can read. They obviously try to high jack every thread they respond to. To intentionally derail a thread is by definition trolling and I for one am tired of it. I cannot believe it is tolerated. Oh sure they will claim innocence and that they did not intentionally try to sabotage the thread but then turn right around and say how enlightened and intelligent they are to see right through bigfootery. So what is it? If you are so intelligent you know what your intent was and that was trolling in my opinion.

Edited August 9, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT