Question For All Skeptics/non-Believers To Answer

[Guest]

Well apparently police DO report it as they see it...even if it's weird!

I took this quote from BFRO report "When I got home I called the State Patrol and asked where I was to report an unusual sighting, and he asked me if I thought It was a UFO, I told him no and he said a Bigfoot, I said well something like that. He told me to call the shariff of the county in which it happened and I did. When I called them I went through the same conversation. I told him the facts as I knew them. He knew I was a little aprehensive, and told me not to feel aprehensive about turning in the sighting as he had taken quite a few reports that night on the same sighting and four of those where police officers."

The link: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=671

[Guest krakatoa]

Now let me ask all you this and see if you're serious or simply being incorrigible. This will require some imagination and acting:

As a skeptic in most all things, crypto or otherwise, I would tell you that pondering hypothetical scenarios is a fairly pointless proposition.

A skeptic, pretty much by definition, requires some empirical data to work with.

In regards to Bigfoot, I am far less skeptical of its possible existence than I am of all those who come out of the woodwork with almost ubiquitously inconclusive proof touted as "the best thing since P/G!!!11eleventy!"

As others have said, if 'foot exists, eventually it will be proven, despite the best efforts of hoaxers & true believers who muddy the field w/ false signals.

[southernyahoo]

As others have said, if 'foot exists, eventually it will be proven, despite the best efforts of hoaxers & true believers who muddy the field w/ false signals.

Wouldn't you say the same mud can be made from false alternatives to those signals, which may in fact be empirical? Alternative beliefs are not self evidently correct.

[Incorrigible1]

Now let me ask all you this and see if you're serious or simply being incorrigible.

You lookin' at me?

[Guest krakatoa]

Wouldn't you say the same mud can be made from false alternatives to those signals, which may in fact be empirical? Alternative beliefs are not self evidently correct.

Certainly. That's why science requires as proof clear evidence that requires little, if any, interpretation.

If it ever comes down to "best guess", well the best guess will never be "bigfoot" where another more prosaic explanation is applicable.

[Guest Lesmore]

Easy. Do your assessment, then consult with another officer to a assess your report and ask them what they think...given the evidence. Without, initially telling them your conclusion.

I would think the conclusion I would come up with is that it appears to be a bear...or there isn't enough conclusive evidence to pinpoint exactly what did the damage, but given the strength required to do similar damage, it would seem that a bear, cougar would be most likely perps.

No one, with an iota of common sense, is going to say it is a BF for the simple reason....no one knows if a BF exists, or even the type of damage a BF could do....in the unlikely event they do exist.

No one has seen a BF rip apart a body, then examine the type of damage the BF did.

[Guest]

Nice dance. Your examples have nothing to do with what I asked for based on your outrageous statement.

I consider the matter another case where you have made an outrageous statement without any FACTS to back it up.

The facts speak for themselves. We have the testimony of people right here in this very forum who are LEO and military (or were) that they were either outright ordered to withold/deny/obfuscate mentions of BF even when it became a part of their operations.

Those are facts.

Please apologize to the Law Enforcement people whose integrity and honor you have maligned.

I have questioned no one's honor or integrity as they have nothing to do with the policies of the agencies for which they work. They have to do what their bosses tell them. It takes a special kind of courage to go against that policy and pressure and still find a way to get the information out, as happened w/the Mt St Helens and "Wildfire" incidents.

You, however, appear quite willing to demean their honor and integrity when you dismiss these reports out of hand.

[Guest]

Easy. Do your assessment, then consult with another officer to a assess your report and ask them what they think...given the evidence. Without, initially telling them your conclusion.

I would think the conclusion I would come up with is that it appears to be a bear...or there isn't enough conclusive evidence to pinpoint exactly what did the damage, but given the strength required to do similar damage, it would seem that a bear, cougar would be most likely perps.

No one, with an iota of common sense, is going to say it is a BF for the simple reason....no one knows if a BF exists, or even the type of damage a BF could do....in the unlikely event they do exist.

Nice dodge of the OP's question as well as mine, Lesmore...how about stepping up to the plate and answering both?

[Guest rockinkt]

The facts speak for themselves. We have the testimony of people right here in this very forum who are LEO and military (or were) that they were either outright ordered to withold/deny/obfuscate mentions of BF even when it became a part of their operations.

Those are facts.

I have questioned no one's honor or integrity as they have nothing to do with the policies of the agencies for which they work. They have to do what their bosses tell them. It takes a special kind of courage to go against that policy and pressure and still find a way to get the information out, as happened w/the Mt St Helens and "Wildfire" incidents.

You, however, appear quite willing to demean their honor and integrity when you dismiss these reports out of hand.

Sorry - but you are still not dealing with my post.

First of all - I'm NOT talking about the military.

Law Enforcement. That is where my experience is and that is where YOU need to provide the examples I requested or retract your allegation. What you allege is that that members of law enforcement are breaking the law and/or their solemn oaths.

Who do you think the "bosses" are in Law Enforcement? They are other Law enforcement members. When I reached commissioned officer rank - did I loose my integrity because I was now in charge of a large number of other officers?

The current Officer in Charge (OiC) of close to 7,000 RCMP members in the area of BC which is the historical birthplace of - SASQUATCH - investigated a sighting report in the 1980's and that person is absolutely NOT going to dump, deter, detract, or do anything other than let the chips fall where they may.

Any cover-up discovered by this Officer would be a "career decision" for the poor schmuck involved.

On the old BFF - a person came up with story about an ongoing multiple sighting, multiple witness, series of events in an area on Vancouver Island. I contacted the OiC of that area and secured the full cooperation of the RCMP. I posted that in the thread. For some reason - the person declined to take up the offer of a real, honest-to-goodness, official investigation by the RCMP. :lol:

Edited June 14, 2011 by rockinkt

[Guest rockinkt]

Well apparently police DO report it as they see it...even if it's weird!

I took this quote from BFRO report "When I got home I called the State Patrol and asked where I was to report an unusual sighting, and he asked me if I thought It was a UFO, I told him no and he said a Bigfoot, I said well something like that. He told me to call the shariff of the county in which it happened and I did. When I called them I went through the same conversation. I told him the facts as I knew them. He knew I was a little aprehensive, and told me not to feel aprehensive about turning in the sighting as he had taken quite a few reports that night on the same sighting and four of those where police officers."

The link: http://www.bfro.net/...port.asp?id=671

Thank you for honestly reporting your research even though it may not support your original hypothesis.

[Guest]

What the woman did not initially say is that a large, hairy, bigfoot walked out of the woods and tore her husband limb from limb.

Your hypothetical occurs in the woods of Alaska where the recognized apex predator would be some kind of a brown bear. As you also point out, the woman is shaken and almost in shock. Initially assuming that the woman meant "bear" is not arrogant, but rather logical, and does not imply that she does not know what a bear looks like.

The statement was made in the hypothetical that "it looked like a gorilla".

Not at this point, it wasn't. At this point, the woman has stated that a large hairy monster came out of the woods and ripped her husband limb from limb. Delta Zu already has the lead investigator arrogantly assuming that the women doesn't know what a bear looks like.

Your hypothetical is way too prejudiced against skeptics and non-believers to be taken seriously, imo.

Why is it "prejudiced"? Because all the physical evidence (condition of body, tracks, etc) point AWAY from "bear" and towards BF?

No, I have no problem with the physical evidence present in the hypothetical. The problem I have is with the a priori prejudice that Delta Zu has built into the lead investigator.

You now look at the body, and indeed the guy was torn to pieces. Arms ripped off and tossed, legs broken, head removed from trunk. Would you keep it to yourself that there aren't any claw marks? There isn't the typical sign of bear attacks which are bites to the face and head. Instead the head is ripped off. You look at the wounds and see the body wasn't cut or bitten...but the damage suggests the limbs were actually RIPPED off.

Sounds like a typical scene from every made for tv movie on the SyFy channel.

[Guest]

Laying aside the question of denialism on the evidence (of which there is abundant proof of right here in this forum), the question is straightforward: would you, the gov't official/LEO/whatever accurately report on what all the evidence available would indicate was a BF attack resulting in a fatality, or would you lie about it and call it something else, or would you try to straddle the fence and report as much as possible w/o calling it a BF attack?

Given what we know of how gov't/LEO/military agencies operate on the subject, it's a valid question.

"Straightforward," surely you jest? Delta Zu's hypothetical is an exercise in bias. He loads his scenario with forced, false and demeaning insinuations, such as: as a skeptic would you perform your work professionally or, being the dirty rat, denialist skeptic you are, would you show your innate "arrogance" and deny the truth that is right in front of your beady little eyes. (I paraphrase ).

But if "straightforward" is a synonym for "confusion," maybe you are right after all.

Confusion No. 1.

Zu is not sure he knows how he wants to entrap the skeptic, via his hypothetical. First, he portrays the skeptic as "arrogant" and thus blind to his/her own "denialism." This is unintentionally funny and ironic, given Zu's anti-science pronouncements that pepper many of his posts with a certain breezy arrogance. Second, he seems to suggest the motive for "denialism" in his scenario is not "arrogance," but rather an occupational necessity (a dark view which, along with anti-science, is organic to Zu's world --- a. k. a., "conspiracy").

Confusion No. 2.

Zu confuses real confirmation with the unconfirmed. If I run across an alleged event such as described by Zu in a pro-Bigfoot book or on a Bigfoot Is Real website, I am not obligated to believe it, skeptic or no. Especially if the author of the story of the alleged event then admits that he could not confirm the story, but suspects authorities covered up the real truth. Zu, who seems less skeptical than he should be of such types of reports, cannot help himself from viewing skeptics as "arrogant" and stupidly pro-science if they don't go along with his sasquatch sophistry.

So, what does he do? He places the skeptic in the middle of the unconfirmed story, by use of hypotheticals, and thus converts the unconfirmed (report) into a confirmed reality (via scenario). By this means, the context of reasonable skepticism is shaded out and replaced with the bright, lurid colors of a pretend scenario. Now, the skeptic looks like what Zu thinks a skeptic should look like: arrogant denier of truth and justice.

What a farce.

(Mulder, before you suggest a skeptic has not answered your query --- read some of the posts above. The officer, if professional, skeptic or good, true pro-Bigfoot person, would report what he saw and heard. It would be up to other professionals to decide what may have actually happened.)

Edited June 16, 2011 by jerrywayne

[Guest Knuck]

In the first place, it doesn't make a **** if a person is a skeptic, believer, or whatever. When wearing that badge, all that crap better go out the window. This officer is supposed to be a professional. And besides, the initial officer on the scene is to report what is on scene at the time of his/her arrival. Assess whether there are witnesses,and secure same, victims and thier injuries/condition,call for appropriate units, secure the perimeter of the scene. Detectives dispatched to the scene will procure evidence, observe the victim's state, and write and investigate the incident.

The initial officer doesn't assess anything other than what assistance is needed on scene to bring the incident to a close. If the witness states (for the record)that a big hairy monster attacked the victim, that is what goes in the witness' statement and quoted in the report. It doesn't matter if the detective believes it or not. It's not thier decision to make. The coroner/ME will determine through the detectives collected evidence and evidence on the corpes, what attacked and killed the victim. If it can't be determined beyond doubt exactly what animal perpetrated the attack, that will be in the ME's report. Probably something like "unknown animal" will be the quoted words, because that is the truth as far as they know.

Now what the public affairs officer is allowed to tell the press or the public, is another story. If it is believed to be a bear, that is what will be said. If the ME can't reach a conclusion, it will be "unknown animal" (probably a bear). Until after they are catalogued, and shown to be real, no official report will ever use the term "bigfoot, or Sasquatch" wher ethe public will ever see it.-Knuck

Edited June 16, 2011 by Knuck

[Doc Holliday]

You lookin' at me?

LOL, Inc1, i knew you'd catch that & come up w/ something,

from the looks of things 'round here, we may need to find that "lighten up francis" clip too.....

[Guest]

"Straightforward," surely you jest? Delta Zu's hypothetical is an exercise in bias. He loads his scenario with forced, false and demeaning insinuations, such as: as a skeptic would you perform your work professionally or, being the dirty rat, denialist skeptic you are, would you show your innate "arrogance" and deny the truth that is right in front of your beady little eyes. (I paraphrase ).

You paraphrase incorrectly then...the question is not about whether or not the officer is a skeptic or skeptical, but about whether or not he would stick to his guns in the face of pressure from above/outside to be less than forthcoming, a theme Zu has touched on in many other posts.