Skeptics

[Guest]

Had to split my reply:

Now, if your experiencing rock throwing, calls, or wood knocking thats great. But don't rule out other humans.

Don't rule out sasquatch either.

What so many of us fail to realize is we are asking people to accept something that is pretty incredible.

Not really. It's a big bipedal ape, not a fairy creature or some such. Nothing in natural law or biology forbids there being BF.

There were no new large mammals discovered from 1936 until 1992. None.

And?

Then when one was found it was in the jungles of Vietnam. It wasn't out in the woods behind the shed.

The remote expanses of uncharted wilderness are hardly "the woods behind the shed".

It does seem incredible that we wouldn't know about such an animal by now. Even to me. I've never seen one but I'm on the pro side of the argument here, ladies and gents.

There's a little problem with that statement: we DO know about such an animal. People see it, take pictures of it, record it's calls, cast it's tracks, etc.

We should all be skeptics.

No, we should be OBJECTIVE, keeping an open mind and seeking the best answer to fit the data to hand.

If anything we should have those who are not open to the idea help us look at the evidence.

I fail to see how anything productive can be achieved towards documenting the BF species by bringing in a bunch of Denialists and Debunkers to summarily tear holes in the evidence.

We all need to take a step back, take a breath, and try to look at any "evidence" gathered very objectively.

Tell that to the people coming in with their minds made up AGAINST BF.

Remember, if it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence.

Actually, the BEST evidence is the far from obvious, because it's the sort of technical data that purported "hoaxers" are not likely to know about, let alone get right.

[Guest]

For me it is basically this: I know without a shadow of doubt that Bigfoot exists. However, I do not know if what someone else saw/heard/smelled is a Bigfoot unless they put some thought into trying to rule out other explanations for what they experienced. I think that is the only rational way to be about the topic. I guess that makes me skeptical of other Bigfooters, but not Bigfoot.

[Guest BitterMonk]

For me it is basically this: I know without a shadow of doubt that Bigfoot exists. However, I do not know if what someone else saw/heard/smelled is a Bigfoot unless they put some thought into trying to rule out other explanations for what they experienced. I think that is the only rational way to be about the topic. I guess that makes me skeptical of other Bigfooters, but not Bigfoot.

Respect.

[Doc Holliday]

nicely done jodie, like the way you said that

[BobbyO]

Having said that I'm just going to dive right in. We should all, every one of us, be skeptics. Those who do field research are doing a great job. Keep going out there and getting it done. It will be one of you who gets the real evidence. However you shouldn't come in from the field and make every blur or shadow into a sasquatch. If you have a furry blur on your trail cam thats all it is. Even if it's a real sasquatch you can't call it that because you don't have the evidence. Now, if your experiencing rock throwing, calls, or wood knocking thats great. But don't rule out other humans. Certainly don't let that color your perception of an area and turn everything into evidence. We need to be more analytical and harder on evidence than the other guy so that when he tries to debunk we can come and say, "No, we thought of that."

What so many of us fail to realize is we are asking people to accept something that is pretty incredible. If you've seen one then you think it absurd to think that people wouldn't believe you. It is an incredible claim though and we need to remember that. There were no new large mammals discovered from 1936 until 1992. None. Then when one was found it was in the jungles of Vietnam. It wasn't out in the woods behind the shed. Its a big pill to swallow. So try to understand their point of view the way you want them to understand your own. It does seem incredible that we wouldn't know about such an animal by now. Even to me. I've never seen one but I'm on the pro side of the argument here, ladies and gents.

So skeptics shouldn't be thrown around as an insult. We should all be skeptics. We shouldn't be skeptics versus believers. Maybe those who are open to the idea, those who are unsure, and those who are not open to the idea. No versus. Working against each other will get us no where. If anything we should have those who are not open to the idea help us look at the evidence. To bring in fresh eyes. There are those who want so badly for sasquatch to be real that they see evidence of such everywhere and they get very passionate in the arguments. Everyone can. We all need to take a step back, take a breath, and try to look at any "evidence" gathered very objectively.

Remember, if it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence.

See this is where i think " we " are going wrong..

Nobody " needs " to do anything, nobody " needs " to present evidence to keep skeptics happy, why should they ?? Just because it might keep some skeptics happy for a while or make them possibly be open minded to the Animal's existence ?? No way, they don't " need " to do that..

1 )Everyone one of us do not don't all need to be skeptics.

2 )So what if someone doesn't have the evidence that isn't good enough for Person x, if the Person thinks it was a Sasquatch then yes they should be able to call it a Sasquatch on a Sasquatch Forum & others should be able to talk about it without it being hammered by people that don't think the evidence, even when there may be none, is good enough..This IS a Forum of which the subject is BF after all, it's not a NYPD Forum where cases won't be entertained or talked about or accepted iff someone doesn't have evidence x.

3 ) I don't think that people who have seen one would think that it is absurd that people won't believe you & anyone who does shouldd really wake up a little.

4 ) No one needs to step back at all & take a breath, this Forum isn't for skeptics to just demand evidence as & when they feel, evidence in which 9 times out of 10, the Person that they're asking it from can't provide it for one reason or another..This Forum should not be ruled by these people & their demands as is happening at the moment but if it is, it will die a slow death & not because there is no BF, but because people like myself, would be sick & tired of others demanding ( because that's what they're doing ) when they have no right to as the Forum is NOT all about them & what they want..

Edit : I've just read what Jodie wrote & agree for the record 100%..I'm not saying every claim that something is a BF on here is kosher as it simply isn't..

Edited September 19, 2010 by BobbyO

[Guest]

For me it is basically this: I know without a shadow of doubt that Bigfoot exists. However, I do not know if what someone else saw/heard/smelled is a Bigfoot unless they put some thought into trying to rule out other explanations for what they experienced. I think that is the only rational way to be about the topic. I guess that makes me skeptical of other Bigfooters, but not Bigfoot.

Brilliant post!

[Guest]

Thanks everyone for the nice comments. I think someone mentioned they thought the new board was drifting towards a skeptical POV. I've seen one or two trolls on here so far but it seems the same skeptics that were on the old forum are here now. Likewise, I also see those from the old forum that are witnesses/believers. I'm not getting the impression that skeptics are monopolizing the conversations or brow beating anyone but I post on the general discussion threads most of the time so maybe I missed something?

[Guest]

There is no slant from staff towards either the skeptical or proponent side I can assure you. Yet, each side seems to think there is a bias towards the other.

Tells me we are impartial on our end. And, those of you who know me, know full well that I am. And, I can assure everyone that the other Mods are as well.

That post by Jodie that was roundly complimented has my vote as well. Nice post Jodie!

[Guest Kerchak]

Isn't everyone a 'kind of' skeptic? After all, is there really anyone here who takes as gospel anything and everything to do with sasquatch? I'm pretty sure that all of the posters here are skeptical of at least some things to do with the subject, whether it be not falling for a particular outlandish report or perhaps not being convinced the species is as widespread or as populous as others seem to think etc etc.

I'm of the opinion there is such a species, but I'm also skeptical of much of what gets said and written about the subject.

[Guest NWSquatcher]

Welcome to the BFF Kerchak. I agree that many people interested in Bigfoot approach the subject from just that standpoint.

[Guest Kerchak]

Thank you NWSquatcher.

I think my point is valid. Who isn't a skeptic of sorts and who isn't capable of skeptical thought processes??? I think all of us are.

[Guest]

Isn't everyone a 'kind of' skeptic? After all, is there really anyone here who takes as gospel anything and everything to do with sasquatch? I'm pretty sure that all of the posters here are skeptical of at least some things to do with the subject, whether it be not falling for a particular outlandish report or perhaps not being convinced the species is as widespread or as populous as others seem to think etc etc.

I'm of the opinion there is such a species, but I'm also skeptical of much of what gets said and written about the subject.

Good points. I think the open minded end of "skepticism" should more rightly be called "objectiveism", taking an honest look at the evidence and determining a best result without preconception for OR against.

[BobbyO]

Isn't everyone a 'kind of' skeptic? After all, is there really anyone here who takes as gospel anything and everything to do with sasquatch? I'm pretty sure that all of the posters here are skeptical of at least some things to do with the subject, whether it be not falling for a particular outlandish report or perhaps not being convinced the species is as widespread or as populous as others seem to think etc etc.

I'm of the opinion there is such a species, but I'm also skeptical of much of what gets said and written about the subject.

I agree 100%, a lot of what you say applies to me too..

But i won't ENDLESSLY demand evidence be given & if it's not, dismiss the subject as hogwash..

[Guest RayG]

I've never considered the topic hogwash, but there once was a time when I accepted anything/everything about bigfoot without question. My skepticism wasn't like a light switch being flipped on, it was a gradual process over the years. I found the closer I looked the less convinced I became.

RayG

[BobbyO]

I've never considered the topic hogwash, but there once was a time when I accepted anything/everything about bigfoot without question. My skepticism wasn't like a light switch being flipped on, it was a gradual process over the years. I found the closer I looked the less convinced I became.

RayG

That's cool Ray, but i'd say you were a touch naive to accept anything/everything ..

In fact i'd say the same about anything not just our subject...