Guest River Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 snip Even still, I don't seek these people out in the Sightings subforum. But if I read comments like that in the General Discussion subforum then I will respond with an "Oh really?" and so should every other person reading such comments, no matter what their level of belief in the reality of bigfoot. /snip I have never posted in the sightings subforum either. I dont see any point on "picking on" anyone for discussing their sighting. The times I call BS is when someone has blatently made conflicting claims or altered evidence to their liking etc (great example ohio bigfoot dude who posted the altered footprints) I have nothing to gain (nor anyone) from picking apart folks sighting reports. We can debate all day about the "evidence" or specific claims though...
Guest Kerchak Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I thought Roger Knights creation of the word "skoftic" was amusing, but I don't use the word. I don't need to. Recognized words in the dictionary are good enough for me, I use it and I think it's apt. The word 'scoff' is certainly in the dictionary and it's just a small step from scoff to scoftic. Scoftic, scoffer seem fine to me to use.
Guest Posted October 4, 2010 Posted October 4, 2010 I suggest you MODS pull something from your nether regions. That is unless you're comfortable with The Bigfoot Forums being a doubters refuge. Those of us that honestly are non-committal lack the refuge of a fall back area to rally our forces. Lord knows this (the Bigfoot Forums) lacks that distinction. But hey, you Mods are so set upon, what with what, pray tell? Dissing good posters? As it has been pointed out to me, time after time, that it is the membership that will "weed out the crap" and the MODS will take care of the rest of the clean up. So far, I haven't seen the membership do much weeding. I was also told that people won't want to come to the BFF and post their reports because of their fear of getting piled upon. Piled upon by who, the membership? Of course....it was always the membership that cleaned out the romantics and the hoaxers. The MODS just made sure that it didn't get out of hand. Believe me, when the membership does the cleaning, the MODS will "pull something out of our nether regions" and make sure no blood is spilled. Currently, there are three threads on this forum that are nothing more than skeptic bashing threads. I am not hearing the skeptics complaining about the one-sidedness of the BFF. And I was the one that approved a Members Sighting area where members could post their reports without debate. How about we stop complaining about the atmosphere here and start talking about bigfoot. Once again, may I suggest for everyone's perusal......the Bigfoot Forums is an open forum for everyone that is interested in bigfoot/sasquatch. Everyone can post an opinion or comment in the discussion of bigfoot/sasquatch. The fact that we have members here with differing ideas and opinions is what makes the Bigfoot Forums the biggest and best forum in the discussion of bigfoot. It is up to all of us to keep it that way.
Guest Posted October 10, 2010 Posted October 10, 2010 Thanks, by the way for approving the BFF members sighting thread. So far we have two who have braved the waters and documented what they saw. I too like the term skoftic. It does fit SOME who come here. I have dealt with skeptics in other fields (religion) who peruse any type of questionable subject and, for fun, tear peoples arguments apart. I would say this fits about 5-10% of the skeptics out there, and that percentage is represented on the BFF. However, to be fair, there are those here who believe just about any evidence, no matter how weak. Orang
Guest Posted October 10, 2010 Posted October 10, 2010 Firstly, the Bigfoot Forums has had true skeptics amongst its membership. But I think a number of antibelievers have identified themselves with being skeptics and that has muddied the waters. By that I mean people who believe that bigfoot doesn't exist and couldn't exist. They'll even apply faultly logic to disallow for the possibility of bigfoot's existance. Hence the failure to understand even the most basic pro bigfoot argument. What is the most basic pro bigfoot argument? RayG Dang it, Ray, you made me snarf root beer on my keyboard! Classic "Squiggy" moment!
Old Dog Posted October 13, 2010 Author Posted October 13, 2010 This thread was started to point out how broad a brush stroke using the term "skeptic" covers, not to bash those who claim the title skeptic.
Guest UPs Posted October 16, 2010 Posted October 16, 2010 That looks like a bear print. A few posters said the same thing and nobody explained why they think the picture Indie posted looks like a black bear print. To me, the size and shape rule black bear out. Here is a fairly fresh print I took a few days ago of an actual black bear print and also quite large. The shell in the picture is a 2 3/4 12 gauge, high brass, 7.5 shot (my favorite ruffed grouse round). This is a classic black bear print and the largest of several that were found in this location. I also have a picture of a very interesting black bear print on my phone and if I can figure a way to post it, I will try. UPs
Guest UPs Posted October 16, 2010 Posted October 16, 2010 (edited) Here is the other print that I referred to. 8 toed black bear or bf? Nope, just a double front print in near perfect substrate conditions. The one thing that surprised me (many of the bear prints I found in soft and muddy soil) was the lack of defined claw marks. This lack of claws does not mean it did not come from a bear and someone with more knowledge of tracking can probably explain why. UPs Edited October 16, 2010 by UPs
Guest River Posted October 16, 2010 Posted October 16, 2010 (edited) Here is the other print that I referred to. 8 toed black bear or bf? Nope, just a double front print in near perfect substrate conditions. The one thing that surprised me (many of the bear prints I found in soft and muddy soil) was the lack of defined claw marks. This lack of claws does not mean it did not come from a bear and someone with more knowledge of tracking can probably explain why. UPs looks like a bear lifted up its paw and set it down right next to a previous print. Bears can actually lift their paws off the ground. :/ (doesnt have to be from the same "foot" but it probably is) Edited October 16, 2010 by River
Guest RayG Posted October 16, 2010 Posted October 16, 2010 This lack of claws does not mean it did not come from a bear and someone with more knowledge of tracking can probably explain why. UPs RayG
Guest UPs Posted October 16, 2010 Posted October 16, 2010 Good one Ray! Also, I believe you are correct as the imprints are very similar. Notice the toe pads are aligned the same. I do not agree with other remarks about Indie,s picture being that of a black bear. It appears to be either of human or bf origin, but not black bear. I would guess that weathering and age may fade the claw imprints much quicker. Ups
Guest River Posted October 16, 2010 Posted October 16, 2010 (edited) Without anything in the photo for scale its hard to tell a lot also. (or what the surrounding prints look like) With no scale reference its pretty hard to determine a possible source. If you saw a continuous row of some odd prints like that it would be a little more convincing than a single track (as to it being some weird foot, and not some type of animal overlay track) Edited October 16, 2010 by River
Guest grandcherokee Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 The problem has not been, and is not currently that people are skeptical of presented evidence. Rather it is and has been the fact that most assumed evidence of sasquatch involvement or proof of sasquztch'x existence falls dramatically short of the mark. And is not actually evidence of anything. The BFF has proven this out over and over during the years. And it is something that myself and our group who investigate reports of this creature keep well in mind. 1
Recommended Posts