"believer" Turned "skeptic"

[Huntster]

But Peggy Sue, if she really loved me, would come around once in awhile, wouldn't she?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Peggy Sue (bigfoot) doesn't love you. Peggy Sue doesn't love the other guys, either. She just wants to be left alone.

[Guest UPs]

I see nothing wrong with COGrizz changing his mind based on what others are saying. After all, new perspectives can shed light on things you haven't considered.

So you think there is nothing strange with multiple witnesses seeing these tracks and unable to determine what made them. Then a couple of pseudo skeptics are able to change his mind in what he and others actually witnessed? Does mind games ring a bell here? I take it the perspectives that can shed light on things means....bf does not and has never existed and therefore he could not have seen what he saw. This type of reasoning has hair all over it and I really hope that you are wrong.

For myself, I would attempt to recreate what we all saw and determine what animal was likely behind the snow prints. I think if he did that, he would have posted his results to help others figure out other trackways. All of the wind blown from a pseudo skeptic will not change the physical evidence, unless they were able to prove it was just all a lie or hoax. Its too bad he has not posted more on how he determined what made the tracks. UPs

[Incorrigible1]

If I saw something, physical tracks in snow, something I tried my best to explain, to understand, I would certainly entertain ideas from all corners. I'd sift and sort all data to best explain the physical evidence before me.

I'd certainly listen to all input and do my best to explain the unknown before me. I'll be damned if I'd let one segment of those I queried for possible explanations to bully me into a preset outcome.

"To thine own self be true." Not that William S. would be caught dead upon the site the thread's originator found his uncertainty.

[Guest]

If folks are thinking that certain pseudo-skeptics have cornered COGrizzly in a cold, gray room and brainwashed him toward bigfoot skepticism then you're (#1) wrong and (#2) being insulting to him and the people he credits with helping see things a little differently. I think it's as simple as COGrizzly coming to the personal realization that, while that track in the snow was odd, that doesn't mean it was made by a bigfoot.

Don't worry about those evil pseudo-skeptics poisoning the well. There will always be plenty of good bigfoot believers out there to keep the faith.

[Drew]

If folks are thinking that certain pseudo-skeptics have cornered COGrizzly in a cold, gray room and brainwashed him toward bigfoot skepticism then you're (#1) wrong and (#2) being insulting to him and the people he credits with helping see things a little differently. I think it's as simple as COGrizzly coming to the personal realization that, while that track in the snow was odd, that doesn't mean it was made by a bigfoot.

Don't worry about those evil pseudo-skeptics poisoning the well. There will always be plenty of good bigfoot believers out there to keep the faith.

Now the government might have brainwashing crews out there trying to convert Believers into doubters, but I think the argument speaks for itself.

Some people are naturally going to realize that the idea of a Giant hairy beast running around ski-resorts and campgrounds, without leaving an evidenciary trace of itself is a bit unusual.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Drew

[Guest UPs]

Sas and COgrizz,

My post came across a bit condescending and that was not my intent, my apologies. I asked a couple of times about what could have left those tracks or did leave them. If there is a another explanation for them, I would be interested in what did leave them. Was it an Elk going downhill? I was under the impression that he and the others were able to rule out all known animals leaving the type of trackway they found.

I found an interesting trackway last year. After researching it, I was able to determine that a coyote would be able to leave that type of trackway and the most likely explanation. Case closed for me. Since this trackway was quite old, it did not resemble your typical coyote trackway. This expanded my knowledge of tracks in snow. If COgriz was able to do something similar, it would help not only me, but others.

Now if your argument is, it cannot be from what we commonly call bigfoot, because they do not exist, that is a pseudo skeptical argument and dodges the question of what did leave the trackway. UPs

Edited September 28, 2010 by UPs

[Guest]

No worries UPs, my comments were in response to a general theme I saw in the thread, not necessarily anything specific that only you expressed.

I agree that "this is not bigfoot-related because there is no bigfoot" is circular, and I avoid such statements (and sentiments). There are people, however, who make convincing arguments that it is appropriate to use such arguments with respect to bigfoot because the physical evidence for bigfoot is no better than that reported for all manner of mythical creatures. If someone posted a photo of a pile of dung and claimed it to be unicorn dung, is it appropriate to say "No it's not because there are no unicorns" or must every piece of purported evidence for something be examined independently? There are plenty of people in the skeptical community who find it ridiculous that skeptical people like me will even engage with people who seriously believe in bigfoot. To them it's such obvious nonsense that bigfoot doesn't even warrant discussion.

As for a trackway in snow, yes it's possible for a track to take on a very strange appearance depending on the depth and condition of the snow, the local topography, and of course, the behavior of the animal that made it. Even seasoned trackers can be stumped by things they find in the wild, but that doesn't make those things bigfooty. I think that's the realization COGrizzly has come to.

[Guest UPs]

There are people, however, who make convincing arguments that it is appropriate to use such arguments with respect to bigfoot because the physical evidence for bigfoot is no better than that reported for all manner of mythical creatures.

This is the heart of what separates bigfoot from other so called mythical creatures. Not the proven hoaxers, liars, mis-ids, but the unexplainable trackways, footprints, audio, sightings, American Indian beliefs, hair, and film. There is just too much to ignore and I can only imagine the frustration of the very few scientists that are trying to get to the truth. In the past and present, the stigma attached to bigfoot has prevented a serious study into the evidence. Dr. Krantz alludes to this in a book of his when he tries to get any other scientists to examine a footprint cast that had what appear to be dermals on it. Whether they were dermals or not is not relevant to my point, but they would not even examine them. For the most part, the public is tasked with documenting the evidence and then science complains its not absolute proof they exist. I use evidence in this context as not being able to prove what it was (unknown).

For those who use the type of argument in context with your post, this just shows their own ignorance on the subject, similar to my own a few years ago. UPs

[Drew]

...the unexplainable trackways, footprints, audio, sightings, American Indian beliefs, hair, and film. There is just too much to ignore...

If one of these could be shown to be evidence of a real creature, it would not be ignored.

Unexplainable trackways? They are unexplainable only to Bigfooters.

Footprints? Have not been shown to come from a giant hairy beast, they are wall hangings until such time.

Audio? Has not been shown to come from a G.H.B.

Sightings? It seems likely that sightings are a combination of proven things, with a bit of embellishment thrown in.

American Indian Beliefs? These have not been shown to represent an existing G.H.B.

Hair? Still waiting for the report showing that this hair is from an Upright Hominid.

Film? Still waiting for a convincing film of GHB.

[Guest]

...

Unexplainable trackways? They are unexplainable only to Bigfooters.

...

I think they are unexplainable to others, not just Bigfooters. I've found a trackway as well as individual prints and they are unexplainable to me (at this time). They are "I don't knows."

[Drew]

I think they are unexplainable to others, not just Bigfooters. I've found a trackway as well as individual prints and they are unexplainable to me (at this time). They are "I don't knows."

OK, but are they evidence of Bigfoot if they are 'I don't knows'?

[Guest]

I don't know.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Ace

[southernyahoo]

I saw tracks in 2004 in the snow that several other people saw and they too, could not explain what the heck they were. One guy even was a lifelong big game hunter and he was dumbfounded. The tracks were in deep snow, uphill and at least 18 inches long. Many of you know my story and the details.

So, between then and now, I've done enough poking around and now feel as if.....ehhhhhh-em....I may be a skeptic....because of a few things. Number one, the words of a few members here, k______e and S_______c. The PGF, although still looking real to me, may have been a hoax. Number 2, S_______c has said some very convincing things here (and on another forum - sorry, faux pa) that has made a lot of sense to me.

So, how 'bout you? Have you waivered on your "belief" in sasquatch as of late?

My team has found some small barefooted tracks in relativley remote river bottoms area, approximately 9" x 4" (little foot). They were quite clear five toed tracks, so were either a lone young male fisherman, adult female human wilderness lover, or juvy squatch. It would be senseless to hoax tracks this small. The occurance of sightings in the area plus some very interesting audio from this same area has me not ruling out squatchy.

[BobbyO]

No worries UPs, my comments were in response to a general theme I saw in the thread, not necessarily anything specific that only you expressed.

Is the " blowing kisses " emoticon coming back nay time soon ??

[Guest UPs]

If one of these could be shown to be evidence of a real creature, it would not be ignored.

Unexplainable trackways? They are unexplainable only to Bigfooters.

Footprints? Have not been shown to come from a giant hairy beast, they are wall hangings until such time.

Audio? Has not been shown to come from a G.H.B.

Sightings? It seems likely that sightings are a combination of proven things, with a bit of embellishment thrown in.

American Indian Beliefs? These have not been shown to represent an existing G.H.B.

Hair? Still waiting for the report showing that this hair is from an Upright Hominid.

Film? Still waiting for a convincing film of GHB.

Same old argument, show us a body and we will then not ignore it, around and around we go. UPs