Bigfoot Follies: part trois

AmyStrange said:
Well, doesn't almost everyone embellish their stories about almost everything?

ETA: I'd be interested in knowing (roughly) how many people you talked to, because some of the folks I've interviewed didn't really want to talk about it, and it seemed to me that the whole thing had frightened them.

-
Click to expand...

Hi

I will agree most people put some to loads glitter on top of their stories and even more if it's second hand ~

I talked to 3 forums full of Footers all about the hairy guy for about 3 years, I was around for most of the good gags and even got to talk with Peter Byrne for around an hour about his work, he was also open minded but he knew the outcome.

There just isn't a Bigfoot creature. I am willing to bet everyone here wishes it was real, that's why they are interested in it ! . . . But it's not happening IMHO.



RRS
 
arthwollipot said:
People have been looking for Bigfoot specifically for decades, in places where they might be expected to be. Not a single one has been found.

Either Bigfoot is exceedingly clever to be able to avoid and deceive literally every effort to discover it, or Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm open to the idea of a third possibility, but if that possibility is just that we have been unlucky so far, I don't put much stock in that.
Click to expand...


The terrible photos and videos don't help either.

My problem is that I'm also skeptical of my own skepticism, but that's also why I try to keep an open mind about everything.
 
RedRatSnake said:
Hi

I will agree most people put some to loads glitter on top of their stories and even more if it's second hand ~

I talked to 3 forums full of Footers all about the hairy guy for about 3 years, I was around for most of the good gags and even got to talk with Peter Byrne for around an hour about his work, he was also open minded but he knew the outcome.

There just isn't a Bigfoot creature. I am willing to bet everyone here wishes it was real, that's why they are interested in it ! . . . But it's not happening IMHO.



RRS
Click to expand...


Thank you for your answer, and I think you might be right about the hilited part too.

Myself, I loved the research and even had an e-mail fight with Eric Bedford (I think that's his name--that was almost 30 years ago) over my website because I had nothing on there about Sasquatch being from outer space, and also corresponded with Loren Coleman, if you know who those folks are.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
The terrible photos and videos don't help either.

My problem is that I'm also skeptical of my own skepticism, but that's also why I try to keep an open mind about everything.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the process of skepticism is by definition the process of examining doubt. So if you're doubting the process of examining doubt, well, you're kind of doing it wrong.

"Skeptical of skepticism" doesn't make much sense, IMO. If you're skeptical of skepticism, that just means you're being credulous.
 
I still check out the BF, Lochness Monster, Dinosaur, Etc sightings all the time it's something interesting and makes a cool Hobby, I don't buy into anything any more it's just been too long now without any REAL evidence.

I am mostly Interested in the Thylacine stuff that's going on now ~

RRS
 
arthwollipot said:
The thing is, the process of skepticism is by definition the process of examining doubt. So if you're doubting the process of examining doubt, well, you're kind of doing it wrong.

"Skeptical of skepticism" doesn't make much sense, IMO. If you're skeptical of skepticism, that just means you're being credulous.
Click to expand...

OMG

That is just Awesome !

RRS
 
arthwollipot said:
The thing is, the process of skepticism is by definition the process of examining doubt. So if you're doubting the process of examining doubt, well, you're kind of doing it wrong.

"Skeptical of skepticism" doesn't make much sense, IMO. If you're skeptical of skepticism, that just means you're being credulous.
Click to expand...


If you say so, but Ivan T. Sanderson disagreed with that, and I kinda think he's right...

FROM: More "Things" by Ivan T. Sanderson, 1969


The very basis of science is a healthy skepticism--one, moreover, that should question the skeptic who denies the existence of anything just as readily as it should question the benighted traveler who dares affirm it.
Click to expand...

-
 
AmyStrange said:
If you say so, but Ivan T. Sanderson disagreed with that, and I kinda think he's right...
Click to expand...
The "skeptic who denies the existence of anything" isn't a skeptic. That's a misuse of the term. A common misuse, to be sure, but a misuse nonetheless.

A "climate change skeptic" isn't a skeptic. They are ignoring evidence, and denying expert consensus, which are things that skeptics don't do. "9/11 skeptics" also are not skeptics.

I don't say that bigfoot doesn't exist for no reason. I say it because I have never seen any good evidence that it does, even when people have been specifically and directly searching for such evidence for decades. After so long trying, if bigfoot existed, they would have found evidence and I don't think it can be simple bad luck that they've missed it. If it were there, people who have dedicated their lives to finding it would have done so by now. It is reasonable to conclude that the reason that they haven't found anything is because there's nothing to find.

Sure, it's technically possible that tomorrow someone will suddenly find the conclusive evidence that they've been searching for for decades (it was behind the couch the whole time), and as a skeptic I am required to acknowledge that possibility. But if that happens, the next question is why had we missed it this whole time?

Saying that something we have been unsuccessfully looking for for decades probably doesn't exist is not incompatible with skepticism. Truth is provisional, but that doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions.
 
Last edited:
AmyStrange said:
If you say so, but Ivan T. Sanderson disagreed with that, and I kinda think he's right...



-
Click to expand...


That guy in a nut shell wrote books with all kinds of claims of crypto stuff to sell and make a profit with absolutely no evidence what so ever ~

Kinda like a Aleister Crowley character.

Put some effort into it will ya !


RRS
 
arthwollipot said:
People have been looking for Bigfoot specifically for decades, in places where they might be expected to be. Not a single one has been found.

Either Bigfoot is exceedingly clever to be able to avoid and deceive literally every effort to discover it, or Bigfoot doesn't exist. I'm open to the idea of a third possibility, but if that possibility is just that we have been unlucky so far, I don't put much stock in that.
Click to expand...

I watched a video of bf searchers on an island off the coast of Washington state. It was supposed to be crawling with BF for all the hunters reporting sightings.
Or so they said. There was no evidence of primitive boats so they must just stay on the island. Unless 8' tall apes stow away totally unnoticed on visiting boats.
What they found was typical woodland wildlife, a few noseeums making noises in the distance and little else.
But it was surely worth another expedition to research it more.
If they could get an interested party to finance it.

Follow the money. They stopped looking when money ran out. It wasn't worth donating thier time because they are absolutely convinced a colony lives on the island, they didn't put trail cameras on game trails to send them pictures of whatever passed that way.

But they will assemble a team if Discovery Channel or whomever pays enough.
 
RedRatSnake said:
That guy in a nut shell wrote books with all kinds of claims of crypto stuff to sell and make a profit with absolutely no evidence what so ever ~

Kinda like a Aleister Crowley character.

Put some effort into it will ya !


RRS
Click to expand...

Yeah, so? How does that disprove the quote I provided?

-
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
The "skeptic who denies the existence of anything" isn't a skeptic. That's a misuse of the term. A common misuse, to be sure, but a misuse nonetheless.

A "climate change skeptic" isn't a skeptic. They are ignoring evidence, and denying expert consensus, which are things that skeptics don't do. "9/11 skeptics" also are not skeptics.

I don't say that bigfoot doesn't exist for no reason. I say it because I have never seen any good evidence that it does, even when people have been specifically and directly searching for such evidence for decades. After so long trying, if bigfoot existed, they would have found evidence and I don't think it can be simple bad luck that they've missed it. If it were there, people who have dedicated their lives to finding it would have done so by now. It is reasonable to conclude that the reason that they haven't found anything is because there's nothing to find.

Sure, it's technically possible that tomorrow someone will suddenly find the conclusive evidence that they've been searching for for decades (it was behind the couch the whole time), and as a skeptic I am required to acknowledge that possibility. But if that happens, the next question is why had we missed it this whole time?

Saying that something we have been unsuccessfully looking for for decades probably doesn't exist is not incompatible with skepticism. Truth is provisional, but that doesn't mean we can't draw reasonable conclusions.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but let me put it this way...

I really am skeptical of anything paranormal, but at the same time, I've also had experiences that make me question that same skepticism.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
I'm not sure Bigfoot does exist, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

One of the refutes to the phenomenon is if they do exist, where would a population large enough to sustain itself live.

The one place that comes to mind is the Olympic National Forest, Park and Mountain Range area. The forest itself has 628,115 acres and not many people have explored every inch of it.

As an aside, one of the stupidest retorts I've ever heard was why haven't they ever found a dead body, and the answer to that (as any avid hunter knows) is finding a dead body of any animal in the forest is extremely rare[b]*[/b], and the reason for that is obvious if you really think about it.

*ETA: Unless of course, it's an animal that they themselves killed.
Click to expand...

But not impossible or improbable. With all our looking surely we would have found one by now?

Add what about scat? There's lots of that all over the forests from other living creatures.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
But not impossible or improbable. With all our looking surely we would have found one by now?

Add what about scat? There's lots of that all over the forests from other living creatures.
Click to expand...


You would think so, wouldn't you?

TBH, that's one of the reasons I'm skeptical that Bigfoot does exist.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
I'm not sure Bigfoot does exist, but I'm willing to keep an open mind.

One of the refutes to the phenomenon is if they do exist, where would a population large enough to sustain itself live.

The one place that comes to mind is the Olympic National Forest, Park and Mountain Range area. The forest itself has 628,115 acres and not many people have explored every inch of it.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of any reports of Bigfoot sightings in this area?

AmyStrange said:
As an aside, one of the stupidest retorts I've ever heard was why haven't they ever found a dead body, and the answer to that (as any avid hunter knows) is finding a dead body of any animal in the forest is extremely rare*, and the reason for that is obvious if you really think about it.

*ETA: Unless of course, it's an animal that they themselves killed.
Click to expand...

How about bones? Dens? Fur? Scat? Evidence of feeding?
 
I've been to Olympic National Forest plenty of times, as have many other people every year. Also, I've found dead animals in the forest. Even if they've already been eaten up, you can still find mostly intact skeletons sometimes
 
AmyStrange said:
There are more, but here are a couple:

https://www.ptleader.com/stories/bigfoot-study-includes-olympic-peninsula-evidence,45855https://www.dallasobserver.com/news...l-to-publish-her-dna-proof-of-bigfoot-7144359

https://www.cryptidcampfire.com/blog/nest-site-olympic-project

-
Click to expand...

The first link (dated October 9, 2013) says they have identified Sasquatch DNA.

If so, this would be definitive, incontrovertible proof of BF's existence. DNA is real science. Why has this not been published in a scientific journal? Why has it not been reported in the mainstream press?

Maybe this is why: A Texas Geneticist Apparently Invented a Science Journal to Publish Her DNA Proof of Bigfoot

I await further results with anticipation. :cool:

But. Oh. Oh.

That doesn't conclusively prove that Ketchum's study is a worthless pile of crap. It just suggests it very, very strongly.
Click to expand...
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
The first link (dated October 9, 2013) says they have identified Sasquatch DNA.

If so, this would be definitive, incontrovertible proof of BF's existence. DNA is real science. Why has this not been published in a scientific journal? Why has it not been reported in the mainstream press?

Maybe this is why: A Texas Geneticist Apparently Invented a Science Journal to Publish Her DNA Proof of Bigfoot

I await further results with anticipation. :cool:

But. Oh. Oh.
Click to expand...


Crap like that is one of the reasons Bigfoot research is not taken seriously by the scientific community.

-
 
AmyStrange said:
Yeah, so? How does that disprove the quote I provided?

-
Click to expand...

It doesn't and I wasn't trying to, it's good to question everything that's why this place is here full of people that follow that principle, It must go both ways ~


It comes down to evidence and after all these years there is none.

I'm not trying to beat ya up at all, I take this subject with a good dose of humor, perhaps if in the last 50 years if something concrete came along it would be different.


Looks like you stirred up a little hornets nest here, stay planted in what you believe for now :thumbsup:

RRS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom