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

[hiflier]

Thank you Chelefoot.

Hello MIB,

That may very well be true. Then shouldn't the Forum being the wrong place to get answers be part of everyone's discussion? The OP is an intelligent person, read the structure of the posts written.....intelligent. To get at the heart of this thread's intent one only has to observe the title. Though later detailed, what the thread title as worded succeeded in doing is what you now see in this thread's condition.

The thread title may have been issued in error so there is a benefit of doubt as to real intent. However, I've also seen the "bigfoot skeptic" term used only a few times and "skeptic" term instead used many. The OP may inform us of the distinction but in most discussions the "new" definition is often interchangeable with the "old".

Intelligence not withstanding my advice to true skeptics would be to not engage this kind of tricky molasses. It always ends up the same way. It does beg the question of true intent WRT thread title construction.

This one was pure bait with no apparent effort to separate the skeptics from the bigfoot skeptics until it was too late. Intelligent contrivance? Maybe, maybe not. But in light of what I've been reading here I've seen no attempts at apologies for the usual resulting animosities, nor an ounce of hinted regret for the title's misguidance. It pains me to see such bickering but with the thread's wording as such it was probably inevitable. And THAT is the sad thing.

Edited August 9, 2015 by hiflier

[Bodhi]

Hello MIB,

That may very well be true. Then shouldn't the Forum being the wrong place to get answers be part of everyone's discussion? The OP is an intelligent person, read the structure of the posts written.....intelligence. To get at the heart of this threads intent one only has to observe the title. Though later detailed, what the thread title as worded succeeded in doing is what you now see in this thread's condition.

The thread title may have been issued in error so there is a benefit of doubt as to real intent. However, I've also seen the bigfoot skeptic term a few times and skeptic instead used many. Intelligence not withstanding my advice to true skeptics would be to not engage this kind of tricky molasses. It always ends up the same way. It does beg the question of true intent WRT thread title construction.

This one was pure bait with no apparent effort to separate the skeptics from the bigfoot skeptics until it was too late. Intelligence? Maybe, maybe not. But in light of what I've been reading here I've seen on attempts at apologies or an ounce of regret for the title's misguidance. It pains me to see such bickering but with the thread's wording as such it was probably inevitable. And THAT is the sad thing.

It is provocative and I doubt it was accidental.

[Guest DWA]

   

[Guest]

DWA,

What's the matter, have you been getting a bit of a spanking lately? You needed to rally the believers with this thread. If I understand the OP, the whole purpose is to fantasize about what you would say to the skeptics if Bigfoot was real. How about you find the tiniest bit of tangible evidence first, then worry about what you're going to say.

When Bigfoot is proven to be real, It will be a busy news day, I just hope the story doesn't get eclipsed by coverage of the netherworld freezing over and all the pigs flying around.

[Faenor]

Well nakani, as dwa would say the evidence is there and if you would bother to acquaint yourself with it you would realize bigfoot has in most practical terms been accepted by science, not the scientists. Also skeptics are bad and not critical thinkers boo to them

[norseman]

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?

Really???? I missed this tidbit of wisdom.

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

But at the same time it doesnt prove its existence either. And if every other piece of evidence fell and all that was left was your own sighting backed with only your good character? How convincing is that?

If proponents want to be taken seriously then they should be supporting efforts that truly make a stab of providing proof. which is never ever going to be a Iphone photo.

Edited August 10, 2015 by norseman

[southernyahoo]

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.

 

 

We've seen how they drive, please don't add the chore of taking clear pictures of something they aren't going to even see........until it's too late.

[kitakaze]

DWA,

What's the matter, have you been getting a bit of a spanking lately? You needed to rally the believers with this thread. If I understand the OP, the whole purpose is to fantasize about what you would say to the skeptics if Bigfoot was real. How about you find the tiniest bit of tangible evidence first, then worry about what you're going to say.

When Bigfoot is proven to be real, It will be a busy news day, I just hope the story doesn't get eclipsed by coverage of the netherworld freezing over and all the pigs flying around.

 

For myself that day would be a celebration involving eating actual crow. And the crows here in Japan are massive compared to North America...

 

 

I give you my word you'll actually see it. I will put the entire thing on Youtube and in my documentary, should that be Bigfoot, should Melba Ketchum and Paulides bring Bigfoot DNA from that Woods & Wildmen scam they have running, should clear footage of good provenance ever come, a body, part of one or any other reliable evidence of Bigfoot.

I will make it as fun a process as possible. I have it all planned out...

The "So good you'll want to slap your mother-in-law" Recipe

Ingredients

16 pieces of crow breast meat (no bones) (8 crows)

16 pieces of jalapeno peppers (or banana peppers)

16 strips of bacon

1 1/2 cups of Teriyaki sauce

Preparation

Place breast meat in a covered bowl with the Teriyaki sauce over night.

Cook the breasts in boiling water for about five minutes. Cut up fresh

jalapeno peppers into circles (or use the store bought kind that come in

jars). Place one jalapeno pepper in the center of each breast and wrap with

bacon. Secure the bacon with a round toothpick. Cook on the grill until

bacon is crisp (not burned). Flip the breasts constantly to avoid the fat

catching on fire. Use banana peppers for people that don't like their food

quite so hot.

Serves four adults 

I actually have a butcher friend who will prepare the meat for me. He thought I was nuts when I asked him about it. Anyone who would care to join me in doing that can choose their favourite recipe right here. It's not a joke...

http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm

Jalapeños, bacon, black bandit and teriyaki? Hell, yes. I think of chicken as being dinosaur meat, so crow would not be any different.

 

[Guest]

Well nakani, as dwa would say the evidence is there and if you would bother to acquaint yourself with it you would realize bigfoot has in most practical terms been accepted by science, not the scientists. Also skeptics are bad and not critical thinkers boo to them

He's really talking about the scoffers, because they aren't really skeptics. Yes boo to them. Absolutely. 

Edited August 10, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[Guest DWA]

Right.

Someone who questions the assumption that bigfoot isn't real:  a skeptic.

Someone who knows it isn't real and doesn't need to look at the evidence to know:  A TRUE BELIEVER.

[Incorrigible1]

Necroposting to an inactive member.

[Guest DWA]

And you read it, and are thereby educated.  When the person leaves, the thought remains.  To think differently would say that we can learn nothing from fossils, nor from the writings of the deceased, n'est-ce pas?

Edited July 17, 2016 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Well there is no chance that I'll need to be cannibalistic in any way shape or form.  The day of proof will never arrive.  If it was going to happen it would have happened a long time ago.  If you all pay a little more attention to what real science, real naturalists, and even technocrats say you'd be shifting you attention to a more tangible muse.  Pokemon anyone?

[aether-drift]

I find this entire thread really disconcerting.

 

I'm skeptical because based on what I've seen personally in 30+ years of wilderness experience, and online in various videos, chat forums, DNA studies, etc. we still do not - after decades of earnest searching - have any good scientific evidence for sasquattle.

 

That does NOT mean they don't exist. Hell, I want them to exist and enjoy my time in nature thinking about the possibility and looking.

 

But Sasquatch have not been demonstrated to exist using the most basic scientific criteria: a type specimen, DNA, or unambiguous HD video with demonstrated provenance. Worse, there are people out there hoaxing and monetizing the phenomena which muddies the waters even more. THAT is what drives scientists away, not the critter itself. Whether sasquatch exists or not is equivocal to me. It would be more fun if they did, but I don't really care one way or the other. It should not be such an emotional thing for people - I really do not understand this part of the sasquatch world. It's like a religion or something, people dived into 'believers" and "skeptics". Really? Is this third grade? It should be obvious to all that the evidence collected thus far is insufficient to prove existence.

 

If you have seen a sasquatch up close in good conditions, then AWESOME for you. The rest of us, however, have to play different rules. In my opinion, unless you have seen one personally - under unassailably good lighting conditions - the only reasonable position is "The jury is out."

 

This is the position of mainstream science and it is the correct position.

 

[Guest DWA]

"But Sasquatch have not been demonstrated to exist using the most basic scientific criteria way of showing the ignorant that something is real:  a type specimen, DNA, or unambiguous HD video with demonstrated provenance."

 

There, fixed.

 

As a scientist said, not too long ago, science is nothing but careful thinking.  The careful thinking in this field is being done by the scientific proponents, who have demonstrated a vast and virtually conclusive body of evidence:  the encounter reports, voluminous and consistent over an enormous span of time and space, and the footprints, ditto.  The Patterson-Gimlin film may be sui generis, but it has been demonstrated virtually beyond reasonable doubt to be genuine.

 

Mainstream science's position is incorrect and a violation of scientific principle at every level.  The evidence says,  in no uncertain terms:  follow this evidence and you will find this animal.  Instead, scientists sit on their hands and, far worse even than that, seem to be doing and saying everything they can to *discourage* a concerted search.

 

You mention your experience in this:  "what I've seen personally in 30+ years of wilderness experience, and online in various videos, chat forums, DNA studies, etc." That is IT?  That is all you have done?  You have to make a serious in-depth study of the encounter literature and the footprint finds.  You have to do some - a LOT - of that scientific 'careful thinking' about what you have read.  Then you have to ask yourself:  Has anything like this happened, in the history of our species, that was not pretty much what the evidence says it was?  (NO to that.  Not close.)  What kind of world would we be living in in which something like this was a comprehensive false positive?  (Hint:  we ain't living in that world.)

 

You say that "we still do not - after decades of earnest searching" have proof.  Searching by whom, with what resources, for how long?  The answer IS! 

 

None.  By nobody.  On any time frame, with any kind of funding, even remotely close to what scientists expend on proving something.

Edited July 18, 2016 by DWA
To add some stuff about 'where to find evidence.'