What's A Skeptic?

[Huntster]

In response to the bolded part, fortunately in some cases there is physical evidence connected with the observations, but to Huntsters point, the average Joe making these observations and collecting the evidence is powerless to actually prove what it belongs to. The science and the degree of investigation on that evidence costs much more than any amatuer enthusiast could squeeze from his budget.

Thank you for pointing out this obvious reality. This is why I rail so regularly for an official response to this phenomenon, and like the great and wise man Roger Knight (I miss you, Roger) so correctly pointed out, it is no more the lay man's responsibility to catch a sasquatch as it is for him to collar a crook on the street. We have officials for a reason, and they at least need to begin showing up at the scene of the crime.

[indiefoot]

OOPS!!!! You posted "...will look at those dermal ridges..."

Seems like you have already come to the conclusion that what you are seeing are actually dermal ridges when there is no valid evidence to state that. That is very unscientific.

[Guest rockinkt]

Grammar patrol duty is beneath you.

That is not a grammar mistake. Perhaps you should look up what the definition of grammar is.

It is perfectly correct to point out a person's inherent bias when they appear to be pretending to be a neutral observer.

[Incorrigible1]

I stand corrected. It's not beneath you.

[Guest BitterMonk]

For example if dermal ridges were mentioned they would immediately attack the idea because of the work of Matt Crowley. What they don't do is ask questions like, "Are dermal ridges possible to cast?

Actually, they do ask those questions. They get asked here too.

ETA - I'm not exactly sure who all you're lumping in with "they". I just wanted to show at least some of those "they" were indeed asking and answering that question.

Edited September 26, 2010 by BitterMonk

[Guest]

I appreciate those links BitterMonk. I was primarily thinking of people on the BFF. I don't mean everyone who is skeptical to a degree. I am talking about those who are self-defined skeptics. They almost always jump to a skeptical conclusion without entertaining the possibility that the evidence could have positive implications.

I am deliberately generalizing. I know that may seem vague but I don't want to mention people by name. I guess I am just asking some of our skeptic friends to help rather than have a knee jerk reaction to debunk.

Orang

[Guest mizzousquatchn]

I would tend to divide the believers into two groups. One group had an encounter or something they thought was an encounter and the other group just believes the evidence absolutely proves Bigfoot is real. I would place the second group and what is commonly called skeptics in the non skeptical category for whatever reasons they have to believe what they believe. It is kind of hard to judge what someone saw or didn't see and I am reluctant to make judgments on that. To me, it is arrogant to just assume that much knowledge. It seems to me that being a skeptic is the only rational position for the vast majority of us. I had an encounter that largely convinced me but since I am not all knowing I can't take that as proof. That is just the way my mind mind works. Thinking you know something that you clearly don't and calling yourself a skeptic is really stretching the definition of the word way past the breaking point. I like calling myself a skeptic and don't appreciate it at all when people that think they have all the answers use the term to describe themselves.

Very well said!!!!!

[Guest]

They almost always jump to a skeptical conclusion without entertaining the possibility that the evidence could have positive implications.

Why assume those possibilities have not been entertained? In the case of so-called dermal ridges, I am unaware of any analysis that can reliably distinguish such ridges from the casting artifacts that have been demonstrated. The onus is on people who put stock in such features as evidence to do that analysis - and to cease from citing dermal ridges as evidence until that work is done.

[Guest]

Any suggestions on how to do it?

I see your point and agree that some testing or equivalent forensic research is needed to make a compelling argument in the case of dermal ridges. My point is to help make that type of situation possible by constructive feedback.

It is fine to say, "This method has proven unreliable and we should give up on it." However, it would also be great if we heard more of, "Have you considered trying this alternate method instead, that might solve the problem and provide reliable, testable results." It is the second type of constructive criticism that we are not getting from many Skeptics.

There is a time to build up as well as a time to tear down.

Orang

[indiefoot]

With the quality of todays point and shoot digital cameras it is possible to record the dermal ridge data in a photograph. Then you can compare the cast and the photo.

[Huntster]

With the quality of todays point and shoot digital cameras it is possible to record the dermal ridge data in a photograph. Then you can compare the cast and the photo.

That ought to fit a stick up the Tube, so to speak...........

[Guest]

Any suggestions on how to do it?

Well, it'd be nice if someone with a real background in primate foot anatomy would lead that charge, rather than uncritically accepting footprints as authentic. . .

It would be tough, though. Remember, this is a phenomenon in which hoaxing should be the default explanation and "dermal ridges" are now out there as the gold standard for authentic footprints in the eyes of many. I'd be surprised if there weren't people who've already perfected techniques for making some kind of fine "fingerprint" pattern in bigfoot prints. Such patterns potentially could be detected and analyzed photographically - as indiefoot illustrates.

I guess what I'd like to see is a serious analysis of footprint impressions made by very large humans in different substrates. We could from that work have a much better idea of how known details of the animal translate into features of the prints it leaves behind. For example, we could determine if dermal ridges in a cast match up to anything biological on the foot that made the print.

That sounds pretty basic, but I haven't seen such work.

[Drew]

With the quality of todays point and shoot digital cameras it is possible to record the dermal ridge data in a photograph. Then you can compare the cast and the photo.

Is that considered an actual bigfoot print?

[indiefoot]

Drew, Since I didn't see a Bigfoot make it, how could I consider it an "actual" Bigfoot print. It does have "actual" dermal ridges though.

[Guest rockinkt]

Drew, Since I didn't see a Bigfoot make it, how could I consider it an "actual" Bigfoot print. It does have "actual" dermal ridges though.

I would suggest you mean "ridge" not "dermal ridge".

Unless you know how those ridges were made - they are not "actual dermal ridges" until you have some way of proving they were made by skin contact.