Skeptics

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Saskeptic,

I do believe this forum is fortunate, to have access to your knowledgeable sense of logical procedure.

You have also explained how 'science' and universities work, which I would say have made for a better understanding of how and why....things science...are done.

Les

When it comes to Bigfoot if you had a chemistry set as a kid you got just as much scientific insight into the mystery as anyone else.

[Guest]

Sas

I'd like to know what you think of ALL the supposed evidence since say PGF.

Do you think it is all faked and/or misidentified.

Well, the short answer is that I am fully confident that there is no flesh and blood population of bigfoots whooping it up in the woods as you're reading this. The longer answer is that I'm willing to consider all sorts of evidence. For some of it, the problems are obvious to me, though apparently not to other folks (e.g., Skookum Cast). I don't begin to presume, however, that I have some magical power to debunk every piece of purported evidence that comes down the pike. The fact that I can't debunk something, however, doesn't mean that it's a piece of bigfoot. So for many pieces of evidence, the furthest I can go is "I don't know." I'm comfortable with that - other folks, not so much.

[Guest]

I for one consider myself a skeptic when it comes to Sasquatch.

In my definition, I consider every other possibility before considering something Sasquatch related.

It's no good to call something Sasquatchish when there could be other possibilities.

Not every tree branch "configuration" is Sas related.

Just because you don't know what something is, doesn't mean it's something 'Squatchy.

If someone is out looking for Bigfoots and they hear a sound they can't identify, it's automatically a Bigfoot.

If you were out looking for a Chupacabra or The Jersey Devil and you heard an unidentifiable sound, it would be a Chupacabra or The Jersey Devil.

That kind of thinking really doesn't help anything.

When in doubt, disregard.

Sometimes, I get the impression that some folks think they HAVE to come back from a trip with some sort of "potential evidence". Like if they come back with nothing it makes them a bad investigator.

You have to look at it from the outside.

What would someone who doesn't really have any interest in the subject think about what your putting out there as "potential evidence?"

If almost every time you go out you come back with something you consider 'Squatchy, then why hasn't this **** thing been proven to exist yet?

I may be an insider (maybe, maybe not) but I always think as an outsider. Keeps you honest.

All my own opinions of course.

[Will]

Well, the short answer is that I am fully confident that there is no flesh and blood population of bigfoots whooping it up in the woods as you're reading this. The longer answer is that I'm willing to consider all sorts of evidence. For some of it, the problems are obvious to me, though apparently not to other folks (e.g., Skookum Cast). I don't begin to presume, however, that I have some magical power to debunk every piece of purported evidence that comes down the pike. The fact that I can't debunk something, however, doesn't mean that it's a piece of bigfoot. So for many pieces of evidence, the furthest I can go is "I don't know." I'm comfortable with that - other folks, not so much.

That is a fair answer

Thanks

[Guest]

Was there ever any audio or video recordings of the coyote making those sounds. I would like to see or hear them if they are available.

I do not recall all the specifics of that story. And as it was on the old BFF, I can't access it right now. =/ From my memory, I recall that two individuals heard the sound, then crested a hill while and observed the coyote making the sound. I remember that these individuals were some how connected to the original recording, either present during the recording or associates of the individual making the recording, etc. I also don't recall if they recorded the sound while they approached it. I do remember that once they saw the coyote making the sound, it stopped mid-way through and another coyote appeared approaching the clearing - at which point the two of them engaged in the traditional "yip-yiping" we all know.

[Guest MikeG]

I don't think that many things in life are black-and-white, yes-or-no, binary-type situations. Almost every subject is much more about shades of grey, in my experience. So why is it that the world of sasquatch seems to be divided into two camps, with the attitude "if you're not with us you're against us"?

Let me see if I can illustrate how I actually think all the views regarding the subject are:

1, 2, 3 etc...........................................................>>>.......................................................................98, 99, 100.

With 1 being "if a sasquatch walked through my door and sat on my lap right now I would deny its existence", and 100 being "even if I never encountered one, if no-one had ever reported seeing one, and none is ever described by science, I would still believe".

I reckon that the vast majority of people are hovering around somewhere in the 25 to 75 range, open mindedly awaiting something to move them from their present "intruiged, but not certain" mindset. That doesn't put them in either camp, in my view. But an innocent observer of this forum would think that someone at 49 on the scale was in one camp, and that someone at 51 was in the other. That's what happens if you only have two categories.

Now, the words themselves. Dammit, I hate them!

I try my hardest to avoid "belief" anywhere in my life. I'm a fallible human, so it's bound to crop up, but it should be hugely resisted. Implicit in belief is acceptance-without-evidence, and I want evidence before I take a view on something. I'm not going to just accept what the postman tells me, or what I read on the internet or in a book. I want evidence. Evidence that I can examine, or that I can check has been thoroughly examined by others. Critical thinking: that's all I ask.

So, I'm definitely not in the "believers" camp.

Skepticism. A questioning attitude. Doubt about stuff which is accepted or taken for granted. Great.....that's me. I want to look into things, check "facts", enquire about the validity of claims and statements. So, I am a sceptic.

But "sceptic" here means something completely different (to the other camp, at least). Sceptic is taken to mean a denier. A nay-sayer. A 1, 2 or 3 on my scale, above. I deeply resent this stupidity, this absolutism. I am definitely not a denier. I am not a nay-sayer. I expect that the existence of sasquatch will soon be demonstrated to the satisfaction of science. I expect that a good portion of those who claim to have had encounters with sasquatch have actually done so. I expect that it is an extant animal. I'll be thrilled to bits if it is, but I'll be having a very close look at the evidence.

So, I am a sceptical expector. I will question claims from either end of the scale, and the middle. Don't try and put me in one of the silly boxes. And, you know what, I reckon that I am pretty much in the majority position here: tending towards one end of the scale or the other, but open to the evidence.

Mike

Edited February 12, 2012 by MikeG

[Guest Twilight Fan]

TBH, I think a lot of people can get too skeptical about things. Logical thinking is good, but if it's overdone, it can make that person seem closed-minded to certain other possibilities. However, I fall under the "grey shade" category. I don't believe or not believe Bigfoot exists. I just don't know, and I'm okay with that.

[bipedalist]

I believe in the witness/knower camp of which I'm a proud member, that is the only camp I subscribe to.... sometimes I state I'm a believer in that it conveys a convenient position. I'm certainly not a disbeliever, skeptic nor magician. This is not to say there does not exist a false element of magicians in the field who, devoid of evidence and never witnessing the being after many years.... resort to hoaxing. This is the one proven element in the field which is, in fact, repeatable.... and brings much discredit on those true witnesses who describe their encounters to the "t".

Edited February 12, 2012 by bipedalist

[Sasfooty]

Seems that there are only spots on the scale for skeptics or believers, but there doesn't seem to be a spot for witnesses.

That's somewhat offensive to us witnesses. It's like we aren't thought to exist.....

Edited February 12, 2012 by Sasfooty

[Guest]

Sceptics and Believers-A Ridiculous False Dichotomy thread was merged with this existing one.

Grayjay

[bipedalist]

I do not recall all the specifics of that story. And as it was on the old BFF, I can't access it right now. =/ From my memory, I recall that two individuals heard the sound, then crested a hill while and observed the coyote making the sound. I remember that these individuals were some how connected to the original recording, either present during the recording or associates of the individual making the recording, etc. I also don't recall if they recorded the sound while they approached it. I do remember that once they saw the coyote making the sound, it stopped mid-way through and another coyote appeared approaching the clearing - at which point the two of them engaged in the traditional "yip-yiping" we all know.

This was Thomas Steenburg and a colleague of his that is/was a member here on the old forum.

It was very good evidence that the Puyallup scream (or whichever scream they referenced, memory?) could have been a coyote but then could have been an imitative effort with high fidelity (which Sasquatch are certainly capable of).

To this day, the confusion between coyote and Sasquatch calls are witnessed often, made even more confusing by observations that some Sasquatch run with coyote packs and that some Sasquatch calls which are not coyote-like are heard among the coyotes (many examples of this around but I won't be citing them).

Edited February 12, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Well the "Old BFF" was so corrupt from the top down with power/drama that any and all opposition to any of the "Core" individuals would result in a "Permanent Ban"... So yes it flowed smoothly as long as you towed the party line...

Remember debate and argument formed this great country... We all don't have the same position and views, man what a boring world that would be...

I don't think so...

This was Thomas Steenburg and a colleague of his that is/was a member here on the old forum.

It was very good evidence that the Puyallup scream (or whichever scream they referenced, memory?) could have been a coyote but then could have been an imitative effort with high fidelity (which Sasquatch are certainly capable of).

To this day, the confusion between coyote and Sasquatch calls are witnessed often, made even more confusing by observations that some Sasquatch run with coyote packs and that some Sasquatch calls which are not coyote-like are heard among the coyotes (many examples of this around but I won't be citing them).

Yes... Many sounds coming from the bush or woods can be considered unidentifiable, only to later on come up to a river and see a small water filled pool by its side with a stick from a bank side slapping up against the rocks like a drum or coyotes walking into view... That's why humans invented language and developed other senses to enhance or corroborate the original observations.

Humans, unless trained, fail to discern the differences between sounds as well as they do smell and sight. Smell only at short distances and sight only with adequate lighting.

[Guest]

TBH, I think a lot of people can get too skeptical about things. Logical thinking is good, but if it's overdone, it can make that person seem closed-minded to certain other possibilities.

I'm sure many here consider me closed-minded on the topic of bigfoot, but I consider myself quite the opposite. In my experience, those who think I'm closed-minded are not open-minded enough to understand how open-minded I am.

To wit: I am unconvinced by any single piece of evidence - and the collective body evidence - put forth to support the idea that there's a population of live, hairy, wild, giant hominins going about their daily business in North America right now. I have gone out of my way, for years, to consider that evidence and daily engage with people who claim to hold or have experienced that evidence. When I confront something new or foreign to me, I actually comb the literature on that topic and try to form an opinion based on the best available evidence. Based on that work, none of the purported evidence is strong enough to lead me to conclude that that population of bigfoots is really out there because there are alternative explanations that at least equally likely, and in most cases vastly more so.

That said, if some new piece of evidence came to light today, I am prepared to completely re-evaluate my position. I could even be convinced that bigfoots exist and are paranormal, but that extraordinary position would need to be fully supported by high quality evidence that would rule out all other explanations. The last thing that really challenged me in bigfootery was the Michigan Recordings Project. I'm on record here at the BFF that a single decent photograph could make me re-evaluate my stance on bigfoot. Of course it would take a physical specimen (body or part thereof) to warrant naming a new species, but personally, I could do . . . let's call it a "complete 170" on bigfoot with high quality evidence short of a specimen.

Isn't that really open-minded? Those folks who are "knowers", i.e., their belief might be considered 100 on Mike's scale - how many of them could have their opinion overturned to a 0 given the right evidence? Well I'm at 0 now, and I'm willing to go to 100 given the right evidence. So who is more open-minded?

It's fine that people express their "level of acceptance" on a graded scale like Mike described. That's a perfectly legitimate way for people to describe their attitude toward an issue they see as unresolved. The biological reality though is that it is dichotomous: bigfoot either is or isn't. Science is perfectly content to support a position one day and the next - in light of new evidence - support a completely different position.

[indiefoot]

there are alternative explanations that at least equally likely, and in most cases vastly more so.

Until you get to those pesky reports.

[Guest]

Until you get to those pesky reports.

Whaaa? If you mean anecdotal sightings accounts, do you not see how they are the least reliable as evidence of an undescribed organism?