Skeptics

[indiefoot]

I don't care whether someone calls themselves a believer, a fence setter, or a skeptic, what I care about is whether new evidence is given thoughtful examination and whether the person who brings it is treated with respect. Many here want to paint themselves as being "scientific" but their methods and their manner is anything but. I have seen people who call themselves skeptics accept data of the most dubious source if it is in support of their goal. I've heard skeptics put forth absolutely unbelievable arguments in an effort to debunk a claim. Poor work doesn't just apply to the searchers out there gathering evidence.

The old board had this rule.

> Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding bigfoot and those who discuss them, you'll find a spirited and though-provoking debate waiting for you here.

Bolding mine. I will leave it up to you all to decide how well this rule was enforced on the old forum, but I offer this, Can someone who firmly believes that Bigfoot is not a real animal be a productive member in a board dedicated to Bigfoot discussion? No matter how convincing and sincere a story, no matter how interesting a find, they are going to say it's not proof because that is the only thing they will accept. Since most of us agree that anything short of a body will not convince these guys then we are at a stalemate with them.

The owners and operators of this new forum need to decide who, if anyone, gets pushed away by the "tone" of the board, the "frozen, chosen" or the new blood that signed up and said hi when you took over. Many people aren't going to participate when names of people they look up to are used like floor mops. The disrespect can be stunning at times, and it is pushing many away. You can disagree with someone's conclusions without calling them names or belittling their efforts.

[Guest]

Hummm, I was on the old forum a few months before it closed and now this one. I don't recall anything major but it must be related to what topics you post under. I could see how those posting videos, pics, and sound waves might get more criticism than someone like me spinning theories. Plus, I would imagine active field researchers would have a bigger emotional investment in what they are doing than those that are just interested like myself. One person's evidence may invalidate another's findings, both are invested in what conclusions they have drawn from their personal experiences, in that case, turf wars are inevitable. You don't even necessarily get respect in fields of research that are considered legitimate. All I can say is don't play into the baiting when it happens, that is the best way to win respect. Nobody discredits you but you in how you carry yourself.

[Guest]

The moderators will do their best to not let any one side overtake the forums.

If a person that is skeptical of bigfoot's existence continually tries to derail threads, we will certainly take care of that.

On the other hand, if a person that believes in bigfoot's existence continually posts silly affirmations, then we will take care of that also.

Not everything in the woods is bigfoot. And there is some really strange stuff going on in the woods that makes me think bigfoot could be the culprit.

Personally, I like a good back and forth discussion of the subject.

[Guest Ambermae]

To me it's not so much the skeptics or the believers or even the fence sitters that are the problem but its the aggresive posting styles that are the issue. There is nothing wrong in being absolutely positive that Bigfoot exists and there is nothing wrong in being absolutely positive it doesn't and there certainly nothing wrong with being inbetween, it's how you go about expressing your view that's the problem. Well that's how i see it anyways

[Guest]

I don't care whether someone calls themselves a believer, a fence setter, or a skeptic, what I care about is whether new evidence is given thoughtful examination and whether the person who brings it is treated with respect. Many here want to paint themselves as being "scientific" but their methods and their manner is anything but. I have seen people who call themselves skeptics accept data of the most dubious source if it is in support of their goal. I've heard skeptics put forth absolutely unbelievable arguments in an effort to debunk a claim. Poor work doesn't just apply to the searchers out there gathering evidence.

Well said.

Can someone who firmly believes that Bigfoot is not a real animal be a productive member in a board dedicated to Bigfoot discussion? No matter how convincing and sincere a story, no matter how interesting a find, they are going to say it's not proof because that is the only thing they will accept. Since most of us agree that anything short of a body will not convince these guys then we are at a stalemate with them.

Agreed.

Hummm, I was on the old forum a few months before it closed and now this one. I don't recall anything major but it must be related to what topics you post under.

I take it you stayed away from the various PGF threads then. Between a half dozen of the major contributing "skeptics" besieging Bill in his analysis threads, and Kit's ongoing "Six Degrees of Roger Patterson" PGF debunking attempts, it was pretty hostile there at the end.

[Guest]

I must have missed all that. I think I browsed one time into a thread about it and they were talking about blood and pixels. Anyway,when you get into the gory details like that my eyes roll up in the back of my head from boredom, mainly because I'm not technical and can't really follow it.

[Guest]

When I made this thread I did it with the thought of proving Sasquatch's existance on the whole. If you expect science to take you seriously or anyone to take you seriously as a researcher you have to be objective. You have to be skeptical of what you find. Any "evidence" you come across you need to take it to task. Put it through the ringer. Leave no stone unturned. Then submit for peer review. You can then discuss your findings. Like I said, that way when someone says, "are you sure it wasn't an elk making that call," you can say, "I had it checked at location x and it is not within the vocal range of any known North American animal, your welcome to do your own independent tests." It just lends you more credibility. It lends the whole field more credibility. Its better for everyone.

I'm not saying we should rip anyone apart. But if there is a hole in the story, if theres another explanation, we need to acknowledge and explore that avenue. If we don't then we might as well be the town crazy talking about the voices in our heads. I think if someone comes on here and says, "I caught a glance of a big brown hairy creature retreating into the woods!" we should say, "any more detail than that?" If they say no then to me I'm thinking it could possibly be a bear and therefore doesn't further the field at all. However if the person says, "I came to a clearing and a creature around 7 ft tall walked into the middle of said clearing. It stood upright. It moved around like a biped. It looked straigh at me, this wasn't a bear. I know what a bear looks like. This was very ape-like." then I think we have something we can explore further. Catch my drift.

As far as my statment about if you just have a hairy blur on a trail cam thats all you have well, thats pretty self explanatory. I don't know what the problem with that is. I mean, if you can't make anything out then it could be a few different things. If you have a clear face or a hand then thats a different story. Like I said though, even if a sasquatch walked right in front of the camera and all you got was a brown blur then it could still be anything because you can't make anything out. No one has anyway of knowing unless you've pointed another trail cam at that one. I mean, even at 8 feet off the ground it could have been a squirrel.

All I'm saying is we don't need to be biased if we want this to be taken seriously. If we want science to acknowledge such a creature we have to play by their rules. Then we should and do need to be skeptics. If you don't care what science thinks, if you know and thats all that matters then you don't owe anyone an explanation anyway. But I personally am going to come at the subject as objective as possible, I'm going to want real answers and I want to eliminate the possibility of contamination or outside influence. I'm going to try to look at it the way a scientist might and I'm even going to try to look at it like a lawyer at times.

As far as some personal attacks they have been made by both sides. Yes I'm aware of some of the attacks made on Bill Munns character and credentials that your talking about. I found the whole situation appaling. I'm a big supporter of Bill and I think he deserves a great deal of respect for his attention to detail on the film. He is uniquely suited to answer questions about the film. Because of his creature affects background? In part. Mostly because I'm not aware of too many other people who have scrutinized the film in the detail that man has. I don't think anyone has paid that much attention to it. I'm not aware of anyone analyzing the same film he has. He has looked at the second generation copy which shows much more detail then what we are used to. So I always kind of bristle when people attack him personally. Now the same can be said for Kit. While I don't agree with a lot of what he says or how he goes about doing things (lawyer way of thinking, what stands up in a court of law) the man is taking an unprecedented look into the whole situation surrounding the film. The man does it in his free time. He should get the same ammount of respect as anyone else. Anyone who dedicates any real time to the field and honest to God analysis of evidence is okay in my book.

Though for the record I think the PGF is a black hole that will eventually lead to the downfall of human society. (I kid, but the whole thing is a mess, lol.)

Anyway, I guess it depends on what your goals are, but if you have a sighting or other evidence I will probably ask a lot of questions, but I will be respectful about it. Saskeptic did a good job in the multiple sightings thread, and the witness did answer all questions asked and had no problems. It was other people uninvolved that got upset. If I said tomorrow that I saw an SR-71 fly over my house I would expect a lot of questions from folks. Then a knock at my door from the CIA telling me to clam up, but thats how those things go.

The biggest thing in respect and maturity. I agree with Amber as well, there are some aggressive posters on here and while that shows much ferve and passion and spirit sometimes we let that get away with us and it comes off pretty bad. Thats why I say we all need to take a steo back and take a breath at times.

Anyway, I'll write more tomorrow. I have to crash for now. I have to be up for work in 5 hours. Lol.

[Guest]

When I made this thread I did it with the thought of proving Sasquatch's existance on the whole. If you expect science to take you seriously or anyone to take you seriously as a researcher you have to be objective. You have to be skeptical of what you find. Any "evidence" you come across you need to take it to task. Put it through the ringer. Leave no stone unturned. Then submit for peer review. You can then discuss your findings. Like I said, that way when someone says, "are you sure it wasn't an elk making that call," you can say, "I had it checked at location x and it is not within the vocal range of any known North American animal, your welcome to do your own independent tests." It just lends you more credibility. It lends the whole field more credibility. Its better for everyone.

They did this with vocals on Unsolved Mysteries back in the 80s, and we've gotten DNA results conclusive for Unknown Primate (the Bhutan Yeti results), and the "skeptics" immediately set in to calling down doubt fire on them.

Every time proponents meet one evidentiary challenge, the "skeptics" move the goal line.

[Guest]

Very good post, Colossus.

Every time proponents meet one evidentiary challenge, the "skeptics" move the goal line.

I don't believe the goal line is getting moved at all. And I have yet seen a bigfoot proponent meet a single evidentiary challenge.

A DNA sequence identified as unknown Primate still doesn't prove Yeti. How does Yeti DNA prove Sasquatch in North America?

Unknown vocals are just that....unknown vocals. Animals and people have the ability to make a lot of different vocals that can not be easily identified. There has been no proof that a sasquatch can make a vocal that a human can't make.

When I provide a clear cut video of a sasquatch making a particular vocal, then I will expect the skeptics to shut up. Until then, somebody needs to question the "evidence" I am trying to submit. The least I can do is try to provide the evidence as scientifically as I possibly can.

[Guest]

Very good post, Colossus.

I don't believe the goal line is getting moved at all. And I have yet seen a bigfoot proponent meet a single evidentiary challenge.

Challenge was made that we had no physical trace evidence: hairs going back to the 70s have been provided, blood typing provided, dna results provided. We have recorded vocals that were professionally analyzed and shown to have come from non-human throats (the Unsolved Mysteries results from the 80s, among others). We have a certified report where the creature was SEEN making a recorded vocal (the NA police incident that was documented on the old forum). We have Fahrenbach's track trait distribution paper documenting a naturalistic bell curve indicative of a legitimate population of creatures rather than a collection of hoaxes.

All that and more are hard evidence as demanded, but when the proponents produced it, the "skeptics" said "tain't enough. NOW we want x, y, z, etc".

Moving goalposts.

A DNA sequence identified as unknown Primate still doesn't prove Yeti. How does Yeti DNA prove Sasquatch in North America?

It definitively proves an unknown primate, and we aren't supposed to have any of those. And once we prove ONE population of said species, the door is forever shut on the contention that we cannot have OTHER populations of said species or related species.

Unknown vocals are just that....unknown vocals. Animals and people have the ability to make a lot of different vocals that can not be easily identified. There has been no proof that a sasquatch can make a vocal that a human can't make.

That's not what the vocal analysts in the 80s concluded.

[Guest]

Moving the goal posts? It's more like "not in field goal range."

Mulder, you can keep spouting these examples as often as you like, but it doesn't make a single one of them quality evidence for the existence of any kind of bigfoot/yeti anywhere in the world. Please provide a link to any and all papers in peer-reviewed journals of science that you consider to be supportive of the existence of such creatures. We can examine each in turn, even with a separate thread if you like.

Here's a hint though: Unless you find a paper that is titled something like "A new species of extant hominid from Bhutan," then there really isn't anything of substance in the evidence you claim.

[Guest]

All that and more are hard evidence as demanded, but when the proponents produced it, the "skeptics" said "tain't enough. NOW we want x, y, z, etc".

Moving goalposts.

Like the Kobiashi Maru senario?

BTW, I think the term "unknown" doesn't mean "unclassified"

Edited September 20, 2010 by wickie

[Guest]

Vocals are just that. Some vocals that were deemed not human and sounded like what you thought a primate would sound like ended up being Elk and Coyotes. Some animals make noises I know I wouldn't expect them too. Also a "certified report" is pretty much hearsay. Though they may be otherwise dependable it's hardly proof. I know there is still inconclusive's on some of the vocals, but for now all they can be is inconclusive. Though they are highly interesting when you have researchers scratching their heads.

Not to split hairs but the thought of conclusive inconclusive results kind of amuses me. I know its very possible. I could say, "I know conclusively the I don't know why my car won't start." I'm not saying it can't happen, it just sounds funny. Anyway, I think I read somewhere (on this site) that when they say unknown primate it just means they know it's primate but just not which one. In other words the sample was degraded, not sufficient in quantity, or needs more lab work done. I seem to remember reading that. I don't know if I'm right on this one though. Don't get me wrong, personally, unknown primate returns always make me a little excited.

Also hairs do not a sasquatch make. Even if they come up unknown they could belong to, perhaps, an unknown subspecies of bear for all we know. All unknown hairs do is open up the possibility of some unknown animal. Again, personally I like this kind of evidence, but hardly stands up to science.

Thanks for the compliment, Splash.

Just because you bring some evidence that answers one question being asked doesn't mean that other questions won't follow. If the evidence is good it will stand up and speak for itself. So I would say that if the evidence is good enough it will stand up to not just one but a hundred questions. I wouldn't call that moving the goal post. Its all in due process and its good research/science.

For the record I'm not discrediting or dismissing personal encounters. As far as I'm concerned they happen. Some data may be gleaned from mass reports. But a single example doesn't mean much as far as proving sasquatch is out there. If it did the debate would have been ended long ago. Though for the record the bell curve being talked about to show that it is an actual population is impressive to me. As evidence though it doesn't mean much because there is, inevitably, hoax's, lies, and misidentification thrown in with what are very probably real encounters. So it kind of skews the data.

I know how frustrating it is that science ignores sasquatch almost on the whole. Especially since, for me, there is enough evidence out there to say there is sasquatch. I haven't had a presonal encounter so I listen to what others say and have to go off of that. I have to look at available information and make that call for ME. But not for science. However you do have folks like Saskeptic out there taking up the slack. Does he agree with some of us? No. I know I don't agree on his findings that there is no sasquatch. He is paying attention, however, and studying the subject. We need more of that.

[Guest]

Oh, wow, I was just re-reading the thread and saw where I said, "I'm not saying the moderators are doing their jobs," I really meant to say, "I'm not saying the moderators AREN'T doing their jobs." No, in fact much respect to the mods!

Oh, and when I said, "In the woods behind the shed," majority of the sightings and encounters don't happen in the deep primeval forests of North America. Many of them happen in fairly populated areas, which is where my quote comes from. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that many sasquatch wouldn't live in those deep unmolested forests. In fact I think encounters show less where sasquatch is and more where we are, if you get my meaning.

[Guest]

I know how frustrating it is that science ignores sasquatch almost on the whole. Especially since, for me, there is enough evidence out there to say there is sasquatch.

That's just it though. "Science" doesn't ignore sasquatch. There are several examples of legitimate, scientific articles investigating purported evidence. I've shared several on the BFF down through the years, as have other folks. These papers demonstrate that there is no bias against publishing on bigfoot topics. The problem is simply that there is nothing in those papers to provide any confidence that there really is a global population of undescribed, hairy, man-apes out there. It's simply a matter that the evidence to-date cannot withstand scrutiny.