SWWASAS Posted November 23, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted November 23, 2015 Thread intended to start an existence debate. At the end of a given day that is all a denier has that he can ever prove: That science does not accept the existence of BF. Someday that will change and they will go argue at UFO or Nessie forums about existence. No matter how much they would like it, the dictates of logic will not allow anyone to prove something cannot exist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) "No matter how much they would like it, the dictates of logic will not allow anyone to prove something cannot exist. " Uhm, that actually works in your favour. The fact that a negative cannot be ultimately proven is precisely why bigfoot as a myth will endure. It relies heavily upon evidence that has no means of falsification. I would argue that a negative can be demonstrated to a reasonable level, however. For example, does anyone here think T-Rex is still running around North America? No? Same logic. Bigfoot is simply not leaving the evidential footprint (no pun intended..sorta) that it should. Just like good ole T-Rex. Edited November 23, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 <For example, does anyone here think T-Rex is still running around North America? > Not since around 1977. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Main point from proponent field guide: 1) Collect absolutely zero evidence of bigfoot while out looking for evidence of bigfoot. Just tell everyone you saw one instead. They'll believe you. Kind of like when someone claims to have proof of a suit isn't it. I suspect this topic was created to stir things up. No comment. Heh, that's what most topics are anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 <yawn> Some just never seem to tire, I suppose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 It's been pointed out before, and I think it was good advice, if you don't like the topic of a thread, then don't enter. Why bother to enter a thread only to yawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC witness Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 "How long would you keep the belief if you found nothing at all for multiple years (assuming you hadn't claimed to have seen the creature)? " This is an interesting question. Often someone will claim some sort of sighting, usually fleeting and from a distance. This can often be the only sighting over a long time spent searching. I have to wonder. The mind will give you what you want. Spend enough time in the woods looking for bigfoot, and most people are going to see bigfoot. This sighting will then verify the effort put in and confirm belief. Then you're good to go for another 20 years. Not quite the case for me, dmaker. I had my sighting about 35 years ago while on a spring bear hunt. No, I didn't mis-identify a bear as Sasquatch, I initially mis-identified a Sasquatch as a bear, until it rose from its squatting position by the water and strode up the hill on the opposite bank of the creek on its hind legs, just like Patty. That sighting was my epiphany, but I did not actively pursue "Bigfoot research/hunting" until just 2 years ago, when circumstances in my life made it possible to do so, and I sincerely hope that I will still be searching for the next 20 years, unless of course, I find a type specimen before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Actually, my previous post has made me curious..........If you're actively out in the field searching for Sasquatch/Bigfoot: How do you define success/failure on a particular search? I'd be happy w/a clear, unequivocally not a bear track. A trackway would be even better. A visual sighting? My heart might not take it and the only better way to go probably can't be mentioned. Would a track find or vocal capture change the way you currently hunt in that you would be only interested in a type specimen as progress or would be happy to find multiple prints etc.? A vocalization is not going to do it for me unless the thing is vocalizing directly at me in my line of sight. I recognize that there are too many things in the woods that I haven't heard, and too many unusual circumstances under which I can hear a normal animal. What would you do if you captured decent footage of a creature? I'm assuming that decent = clear enough to identify an animal and to make a suit highly unlikely. Read up on copyright law and intellectual property rights. I'm guessing that any footage needs to go to a "scholar" like Dr. Meldrum who would then engage the experts who try to deconstruct footage. I would imagine that unsolicited film sent to businesses or agencies that make the occassional appearances on TV shows gets sent right to the circular file. Counter-question: How many people here would contact the BFRO first? How long would you keep the belief if you found nothing at all for multiple years (assuming you hadn't claimed to have seen the creature)? Trick answer - I'm at the point where my "belief" is that there is enough evidence, such as BC Witness's brief story above and others like him, that warrants my looking into this further. Absent the exposure of a secret society of literary fakeurs whose sole purpose in life is to maintain an interest in Bigfoot by generating fake Bigfoot encounter reports, it would be tough to nudge my belief into "it simply doesn't exist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Raider Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Actually, my previous post has made me curious..........If you're actively out in the field searching for Sasquatch/Bigfoot: How do you define success/failure on a particular search? I'd be happy w/a clear, unequivocally not a bear track. A trackway would be even better. A visual sighting? My heart might not take it and the only better way to go probably can't be mentioned. Would a track find or vocal capture change the way you currently hunt in that you would be only interested in a type specimen as progress or would be happy to find multiple prints etc.? A vocalization is not going to do it for me unless the thing is vocalizing directly at me in my line of sight. I recognize that there are too many things in the woods that I haven't heard, and too many unusual circumstances under which I can hear a normal animal. What would you do if you captured decent footage of a creature? I'm assuming that decent = clear enough to identify an animal and to make a suit highly unlikely. Read up on copyright law and intellectual property rights. I'm guessing that any footage needs to go to a "scholar" like Dr. Meldrum who would then engage the experts who try to deconstruct footage. I would imagine that unsolicited film sent to businesses or agencies that make the occassional appearances on TV shows gets sent right to the circular file. Counter-question: How many people here would contact the BFRO first? How long would you keep the belief if you found nothing at all for multiple years (assuming you hadn't claimed to have seen the creature)? Trick answer - I'm at the point where my "belief" is that there is enough evidence, such as BC Witness's brief story above and others like him, that warrants my looking into this further. Absent the exposure of a secret society of literary fakeurs whose sole purpose in life is to maintain an interest in Bigfoot by generating fake Bigfoot encounter reports, it would be tough to nudge my belief into "it simply doesn't exist." Thanks for the answers Trogluddite! When I say 'decent footage' I'm thinking of a photo or film that cannot easily be explained as a bear or a blobsquatch, something like the stills from the PGF or the creature caught in an act that makes it unlikely to be human, climbing a tree or something maybe - though something that is not definitive proof. I would probably make the photo (for example) available here for people to chime in on aswell as making sure Bill Munns and Dr Meldrum have a copy. I'm of the mind that if you claim to have something and aren't willing to share then the person must be prepared for some suspicion. I'd definately include the backstory, how the photo came to be and any interesting information that may help put the picture in context. I don't think I'd be particularly concerned about people calling me a hoaxer or trying to pick holes in the story, I'd just put it out there as information and people could take from it what they want. Saying this, I understand that some people are of a different disposition and see why they wouldn't want to draw criticism and possible mockery or scorn to themselves - my partner and myself are of totally different mindsets for example and she worries excessively about what people think - I pretty much don't give a hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic Raider Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Just wondering what peoples' opinions of 'night investigations' are. As far as I can see, it's a big waste of time. Almost every programme regarding looking for the creatures has some sort of organised nightime search included and I've read of a number of nightime investigations and their efforts. Sure, you may get a few ambiguous sounds but the most anyone is ever going to get is an indistinct thermal image of a blob or some eyeshine that could be practically anything. It's more likely that by tramping around in the darkness the searchers may be destroying or corrupting actual evidence if the creatures are as close as some claim. I know the general consensus from researchers is that Sasqautch is more active at night but the only chance to get good quality, unambiguous photos or film is during the daytime. Even if the creatures are 20 times more active during the night, our vision and ability to detect and record at night is so poor that it makes it practically impossible to get any worthwhile evidence that would help fence sitters, skeptics and the non believers let alone validate the researchers.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbone Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) What would you do if you captured decent footage of a creature? I'm assuming that decent = clear enough to identify an animal and to make a suit highly unlikely. Read up on copyright law and intellectual property rights. I'm guessing that any footage needs to go to a "scholar" like Dr. Meldrum who would then engage the experts who try to deconstruct footage. I would imagine that unsolicited film sent to businesses or agencies that make the occassional appearances on TV shows gets sent right to the circular file. Counter-question: How many people here would contact the BFRO first? "Counter-question: How many people here would contact the BFRO first?" Depending on where my definitive image or video was taken, it is highly likely that the BFRO finds out first. There are a few reasons for this in my case. 1- I belong to the BFRO. I am not an investigator, but I know several investigators in my area. I call them friends and I have great respect for them.They will know before I bring it here. 2- I signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement with the BFRO (now 3 times). If my image or video is in an expedition area that they showed me, it would be my obligation to let them know. 3- I will happily $ell any and all rights to my evidence because frankly, I could use the cash. The BFRO would get first chance because of my association with them, but my stipulation would be that it gets shown publicly, and in it's original resolution. If a buyer can't accept those terms then you will promptly find it here, on YouTube, on Facebook, and anywhere else I can think of. When I had my possibly, maybe, there was something big dark and fast sighting, they heard it before I posted it here...and I posted here early the next day. This was not/is not/never will be a BFRO expedition area though. (link) http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/41373-weird-stuff-encounter-my-family-had-camping-in-northern-iowa/?p=865445 I am already certain that if I capture great evidence that it will be highly questioned. Why? Because I am one of those guys out looking with camera rolling. The video I have of my time in the woods is usually terrible and bouncy but when the time comes I will do all I can to make the shot steady. When driving, I roll almost everywhere with a dash cam on, hopeful of that chance road crossing. It'll only work in the daytime though. Just wondering what peoples' opinions of 'night investigations' are. As far as I can see, it's a big waste of time. For collecting evidence, I tend to agree that night investigations are a waste of time, and televising them with dramatic sound effects is a joke. For the experience...it's a freaking blast. Going to the creepiest places, without lights, and without fear, is very empowering. I will never do it alone, but in a group of 4+ it is an awesome experience. My bigfooting associates don't walk around with high tech green night-vision cameras. We just go out and try to stay dark and quiet, or better yet, sit in a remote spot and be loud and happy. Edited November 24, 2015 by Redbone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) Main point from proponent field guide: 1) Collect absolutely zero evidence of bigfoot while out looking for evidence of bigfoot. Just tell everyone you saw one instead. They'll believe you. Kind of like when someone claims to have proof of a suit isn't it. I suspect this topic was created to stir things up. No comment. Heh, that's what most topics are anymore. I've noticed this in the short time I've been a member. It seems to me that in the absence of tangible evidence or real excitement in the field people start to rehash old sightings, claims. As an interested skeptic, I find it remarkable that this lack of progress doesn't cause at least a percentage of believers to re-evaluate their positions. Instead, I see that folks some folks are ready to accept supernatural remedies (aka portals, cloaking, etc.) as a way of reducing what I suppose is their considerable cognitive dissonance regarding the state of the things. That's sad to me as a rationalist as it feels as though critical thinking is falling by the wayside as people, who have vested so much time/ energy and their identity into this field, struggle for anything that might justify their viewpoint. Thus the thread asking in a humorous way: When is enough, enough? Edited November 24, 2015 by Bodhi 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) Thus the thread asking in a humorous way: When is enough, enough? Enough for me was 47 years of no monkey. I'm reminded of the Toy Story scene where Buzz Lightyear is informed he's just a toy and he laments "You mean all that training was for nothing?" Edited November 24, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodhi Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Thus the thread asking in a humorous way: When is enough, enough? Enough for me was 47 years of no monkey. I'm reminded of the Toy Story scene where Buzz Lightyear is informed he's just a toy and he laments "You mean all that training was for nothing?" That's a tough reality to face man. No joke. It had to be pretty difficult but personal growth usually leaves a mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 For those who lament an investment of time with no result...I'm inclined to just ask: Do you mean time waiting for others to deliver the goods to you, or time actively and actually frequenting those locales where activity is reported to occur? If some think it is their due to have "them" solve their mystery for them, I have no wonder they are disappointed. If some have done that, at least they might have the decency to not second guess those who are doing more than they, and give deference where and when it is due. To do otherwise, they run the risk of merely sounding bitter and malcontented. That those so described feel they have wasted their time seems inescapable to me, and completely predictable as well. How could it not be so ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts