So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[Guest]

Then the "you don't know with absolute certainty" pops up: i.e., undetected caves, not looking in every cave possible and you certainly didn't experience spelunking around in the Sylvanic caves. :]

Well if it's only those caves we can't find that are hiding the bigfoots, then I might suggest that those caves are just as interesting as those bigfoots!

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Again, this isn't a creature that's going to be standing in the middle of a field grazing. It's not going to be sitting on a mountainside in a rain forest munching on leaves and building nests in treetops that are easily visible from the ground. It's not even going to be swimming around aimlessly and get caught in some fisherman's net (Coelacanth). This is a highly intelligent, stealthy and reclusive (for it's own good) creature. Who knows, maybe Sasquatch WAS around during the time that we settled this country and it saw what the white hairless humans did to the Indians. If they were they'd have every reason to not want us to know they were here and I can't blame them.

Why isn't this highly intelligent? species going to be doing what every living creature seems to do while trying to be elusive and stealthy to avoid predators?

i.e., eating on mountainside or in grassy field, drinking water form a pool, seeking shelter; be it in beds of vegetation or a cave.

To be more clear: Not saying Bigfoot doesn't eat, drink or sleep.

Where can you imagine this highly intelligent? species (doing all it's business to sustain itself) hides out?

Since it wouldn't be where all the other animals seem to hang out. :]

Plus: many reports are from somewhere in our natural world; like mountainsides, fields and roadsides. :]

[Guest HairyGreek]

Why isn't this highly intelligent? species going to be doing what every living creature seems to do while trying to be elusive and stealthy to avoid predators?

Nocturnal with a much more advanced set of senses? I hate how people need to keep adding to this creature to make it seem more plausable why it isn't found. It's easier to believe they are practically if not completely extinct at this point somedays.

I hate to bring up Vietnam again (LOL), but between the war we fought there and the English troubles with NA's during the French/Indian War, it seems those attuned to their environs are very capable of not being seen doing everything needed to live and hunt without detection...until they WANT to be found. Just an observation.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Not from me...I am the one without any certainty on the topic. Anything geological outside the most rudimentary laymen's knowledge is out of my grasp without some more research. Thanks to Saskeptic for the cool link.

lol

How many Bigfoots would it take to fill this cave?

[Guest]

Skeptics vs. Believers/Knowers is a fight that can't be won by either side, so I don't see why the battle is waged in the first place. I know quite a few biologists, and wildlife professionals, and as far as I see it, they SHOULD be skeptical! Not that they're right, by any means, but....They just don't get carried away in flights of fancy, or emotional beliefs where evidence is NOT overwhelming enough to envoke a shift in the skeptical BF paradigm. Even the people I know that have 'allegedly' seen them from aerial surveys wouldn't admit it in a public capacity, or have it warrant an all-out assault on the woods. Melba's DNA work could possibly pave the way for justification, however, and you will definitely see/hear of more research being done by professionals who's opinion carries the full value of their .02! As of four years ago, I would've laughed in someone's face if they would've tried to convince me of existence. I would've said that all footprints were either bear tracks, boot prints, or flat-out hoaxes, and would've called every witness a l*ar, or not knowledgeable enough to know that what they saw was a misidentification. Once you see one, quite a bit changes:) Saskeptic, for being a field biologist, looks at it exactly as he should. He just happens to be wrong. But, until he either has an encounter, or the evidence transpires into proof, he is completely justified in his reasoning. It boils down to the intelligent argument vs. the emotional argument, and both sides think they sit on the intelligent side, which technically, they do, until existence is proven. Only a small minority know the absolute truth, and even then, they can only know that for themselves, at this point. That's a huge reason why they throw out the 'knower' card, then walk away from the argument. It's a fools errand to try to convince someone that an 8 foot, upright ape/hominid roams the woods, because it does sound ridiculous! It just happens to be true, though:)

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Nocturnal with a much more advanced set of senses? I hate how people need to keep adding to this creature to make it seem more plausable why it isn't found. It's easier to believe they are practically if not completely extinct at this point somedays.

I hate to bring up Vietnam again (LOL), but between the war we fought there and the English troubles with NA's during the French/Indian War, it seems those attund to their environs are very capable of not ebing seen doing everything needed to live and hunt without detection...until they WANT to be found. Just an observation.

lol, I just couldn't get a Bigfoot tunnel system out of my head while reading this. :]

It can be hard to resist attributing behaviors (which can seem reasonable and plausible, but lack detailed animal observation reports) to Bigfoot.

To add: If I were to be specifically out to find this mighty elusive Bigfoot. I would have a few hunches under my belt; like: as you said "Nocturnal with a much more advanced set of senses." may be one of them? ...Yes, and garlic traps, a trip wire with a strategically placed rock about 7 or so feet away. A big hole so Bigfoot will just fall in it. :]

[BeachFoot]

It has: Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum, John Bindernagel, Melba Ketchum, Tod Disotell, Henner Fahrenbach, Xiankang Wu, Michel Milinkovitch, J. D. Lozier, Dave Coltman, etc. This is just a sample of scientists who on some level have participated in some kind of bigfoot research.

C'mon Saskeptic, you know what I'm talking about. Besides, that's a little more than a "sample" of the scientists who have done any real "research" regarding Sasquatch (by scientific definition), that's pretty much the whole lot. If there are many more, in all of my research I haven't heard of too many of them.

Those folks work at it part-time, I would think, for whatever reason. Maybe it's just a side-interest for them. Maybe they don't have the funding to pursue it full time with a team, as I think this would take. Maybe they are afraid of ridicule if they try to pursue any funding for a real plan. I don't know...I don't know any of them. I DO know, however (and with all due respect to all of them and their efforts), that we are no further now than we were 50 years ago.

I'm talking about science as a whole. A champion (or champions) for the cause. Someone with enough credibility to not have to worry about what people think (or a tenacious person who really doesn't give a **** what people think). Someone with the contacts and the experience to get funding for a major study. Then hire all of the names above and carry out a REAL study. End the mystery...isn't that what science is all about?

edited to fix typo

Edited October 6, 2011 by BeachFoot

[BeachFoot]

Why isn't this highly intelligent? species going to be doing what every living creature seems to do while trying to be elusive and stealthy to avoid predators?

i.e., eating on mountainside or in grassy field, drinking water form a pool, seeking shelter; be it in beds of vegetation or a cave.

To be more clear: Not saying Bigfoot doesn't eat, drink or sleep.

Where can you imagine this highly intelligent? species (doing all it's business to sustain itself) hides out?

Since it wouldn't be where all the other animals seem to hang out. :]

Plus: many reports are from somewhere in our natural world; like mountainsides, fields and roadsides. :]

I never said that Sasquatch didn't visit all of the places I mentioned. I'm most certain that they do and, according to all of the sightings, quite often as well. What I was illustrating there was that they are not going to be in those places/situations or any other place or situation that is going to facilitate (willfully or ignorantly) their "harvesting" in the step towards "discovery".

I would think that if a number of accounts are true, a Sasquatch goes about it's "business to sustain itself" much like any other animal. It hunts, it drinks from rivers, lakes and streams and it finds a suitable (for a Sasquatch) place to sleep in whatever environment it may be in. It's also much more intelligent than the "rest of the creatures" and more easily avoids being SEEN while it's doing it's "business", or at least the majority of the time, anyway. It observes it's surroundings. My theory is that they're diurnal and maybe they adapt their hunting/feeding schedule to whatever time of day they are safest in their current habitat. At the very least, they know how to avoid us and they use every bit of their intelligence to do so.

These are all just my own theories, of course. I'm just sittin' here on this fence and these barbs are really startin' to be a pain in the a@@.

Edited October 6, 2011 by BeachFoot

[Guest]

Queets, Washington sits along US 101 an Interstate highway (even though it is only two lanes) and received electric service in late Summer of 1969. It is a remote location! There are many more remote locations in the lower 48, and Alaska teems with them. So what! Everything there known to science is known............the rest remains a mystery!

Sadly Saskeptic ignored or chose to not address my questions. Skeptics often waltz around the fact that they accept NO evidence relating to bigfoot/sasquatch. They couch this with terminology like, "I don't accept all reports" or "some reports seem more unlikely than others" but at the heart of it they accept NONE! No footprint evidence, no photos, no sightings etc.

Come on skeptics...........at least be intellectually honest and admit you accept nothing and only a corpse will suffice. Please don't try to come off as impressionable when you aren't!

[Guest HucksterFoot]

I never said that Sasquatch didn't visit all of the places I mentioned. I'm most certain that they do and, according to all of the sightings, quite often as well. What I was illustrating there was that they are not going to be in those places/situations or any other place or situation that is going to facilitate (willfully or ignorantly) their "harvesting" in the step towards "discovery".

I sort of thought that was what you meant (wasn't too sure) What you added here helps clear that up. :]

How do we know Bigfoot doesn't think they have been discovered?

Bigfoot A : The jigs up, They spotted me behind the oak stump

Bigfoot B: You're kiddin' What they do?

Bigfoot A : They stood there pointing something at me

Bigfoot B: I told you not to just stand around; remember, always be super stealthy

Bigfoot A : It's OK, I think? I did my human in a suit impersonation

[Guest 127]

Queets, Washington sits along US 101 an Interstate highway (even though it is only two lanes) and received electric service in late Summer of 1969. It is a remote location! There are many more remote locations in the lower 48, and Alaska teems with them. So what! Everything there known to science is known............the rest remains a mystery!

Sadly Saskeptic ignored or chose to not address my questions. Skeptics often waltz around the fact that they accept NO evidence relating to bigfoot/sasquatch. They couch this with terminology like, "I don't accept all reports" or "some reports seem more unlikely than others" but at the heart of it they accept NONE! No footprint evidence, no photos, no sightings etc.

Come on skeptics...........at least be intellectually honest and admit you accept nothing and only a corpse will suffice. Please don't try to come off as impressionable when you aren't!

This is my take on it. If you can't rule out other sources, or if it can be faked by humans then it probably is evidence of something other than bigfoot. Unfortunately, I've yet to see any evidence that doesn't fit into that category yet. Would I like to? Sure! You speak of intellectual honesty in skeptics, yet we're here in a bigfoot forum where I've seen my share of story telling and descriptions of events that can only leave me scratching my head and wondering. That said - I always enjoy reading them regardless of if I want to believe it or just enjoy the story. I think that some folks try to belittle the other side. (regardless of which side you're on) The conversations get more interesting when everyone can stay calm and talk about the issues and not about each other.

Which side of the argument do you feel is being more intellectually honest and why? I'm curious to hear your answers. Also, what specific evidence do you find compelling and authentic?

Edited October 6, 2011 by 127

[Guest Cervelo]

Honesty isn't the issue for me, if we both stand at the end of an airport runway and you see a UFO and I see an airplane nobody's lying but someones wrong. 99.9% of the evidence is poop IMO. The only reports that get my attention are eyewitness less than 50' during daylight on foot.

[Guest]

Sadly Saskeptic ignored or chose to not address my questions. Skeptics often waltz around the fact that they accept NO evidence relating to bigfoot/sasquatch. They couch this with terminology like, "I don't accept all reports" or "some reports seem more unlikely than others" but at the heart of it they accept NONE! No footprint evidence, no photos, no sightings etc.

Come on skeptics...........at least be intellectually honest and admit you accept nothing and only a corpse will suffice. Please don't try to come off as impressionable when you aren't!

Your question from post 168: "Could you share with us the reports you do not consider erroneous?"

From post 172, my direct response to your question:

"Obviously, there are no anecdotal accounts of bigfoot that I "accept." Given that the reports are anecdotal, however, there are almost none that I can refute, and neither can anyone else refute them. We may be a little more skeptical based on specific details of the encounter - let's say a dumpster-diving bigfoot in an urban area - but what I'm talking about is more broadly geographical.

I just checked the BFRO database. There are 218 accounts listed for Ohio. When I approach this phenomenon and try to come to a better understanding of what I'm trying to evaluate, my only source is to read what proponents have to say about bigfoot. One thing they say is that, on at least 218 different occasions, these creatures have been encountered in the Buckeye State. I don't have to accept all 218 accounts to conclude that if bigfoot is real then some of them live in Ohio."

If you are going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, please at least have the courtesy of reading my responses.

In other news, I've probably posted 1000 times on the BFF 1.0 and 2.0 that I will remain unconvinced of a physical bigfoot until such a time that someone collects a physical bigfoot. That's the standard required for the description of a new species, it has been that standard since the mid-18th Century, and I see no justification for relaxing that standard in the case of bigfoot. You must be confusing me with someone else.

[Guest]

I'm a skeptic. I love the idea of bigfoot and I dearly want it to exist. The reports fascinate me, as do many of the images, the track casts and some of the audio recordings. I'm not here to mock or feel superior. I'm here because I'm captivated by bigfoot and the possibility that it's real. But as I say, I'm an utter skeptic. I'm proof it's possible to be this and to find bigfoot enthralling. I'm not closed-minded or blinkered - there's a point where I would be convinced that the animal exists. I'm not there at the moment, though.

Being skeptical doesn't mean being immovable or stubborn or choosing to occupy some high-ground from which to deride others. It's also not personal. But I sense it does become so for some believers, simply because, to reduce it right down, they're saying they've seen something, and the skeptics are replying that they don't believe the something they saw exists. The implication is that the witness is wrong (nobody likes to be wrong), lying (nobody likes to be called a liar) or possibly deliberately misled (nobody likes to be gullible). For such people it's a personal attack and that's that.

I'd be upset if most people on the BFF thought that skeptics were poisoning the BFF well. It simply isn't true that skeptics can't, or for some reason shouldn't have a genuine interest in bigfoot. I really think they're not here to persuade anyone that the animal doesn't exist or to ridicule those who have had encounters or do otherwise believe. I do understand that it looks like they (we) are perverse for visiting and posting on a site like this but I think most are here because the subject is simply fascinating.

[slabdog]

^^^^

Ludo....ya nailed it.

(+)!