Hi Leo113, and welcome to the board! Great first post, I enjoyed your anecdote very much; certainly food for thought.
If I might be forgiven for making a gross over-simplification of your story it would be to say that you encourage that with the BF phenomenom we entertain the possibility that there may be a real creature and to 'think outside the box'. I can only echo Diogenes' statement that that's exactly what we've been doing for so long.
Proponents often make the assertion that if BF was a criminal investigation a verdict in favour would have been delivered long ago. In line with the murder investigation analogy that you gave about entertaining the possibilities and unorthodox thinking what conclusion are you led to feel is the most likely?
Ok, let's try this again. (...and yes, I'm a 2-finger typist)
Kitakaze,
I imagine different folks will get whatever they get out of my story. My main reason for posting the story was because some (don't worry, not pointing a finger at you) skeptics seem to eschew everything non-scientific. They seem like they're trying to pound into everyone's brains that "weak" evidence or "inconclusive" evidence, and certain investigative techniques are verboten, useless, "unreliable," as it were. My story illustrates how the opposite was true, in this (simulated) incident. What evidence did I have that there were two more bodies? Yet there
were two more bodies...and I found them. Was my evidence that the murderer may have dug a grave prior to the crime
strong evidence of such, or weak evidence? Would my evidence have passed peer-review? With the information I had, were there other, more likely possibilities that could have led elsewhere? Should I have stayed put because the evidence was weak? From reading this forum and BFF, I think I have a pretty good idea who would have joined me walking up that hill, and who would have stayed back with the others, laughing at those ridiculous creduloids walking up the hill.
I don't know, it seems many of the more passionate critics of Sasquatch being a possible reality don't
really entertain the notion. Huntster's account of finding the trackway
is evidence that Sasquatch may be real, and a Sasquatch may have made that trackway. I put a lot of credence in Huntster's account and his judgement of the account, but I realize others don't, and that's fine. But his review of the most logical explanations sounded pretty complete to me, and frankly, the trackway being made by a real, live Sasquatch sounded like the most likely explanation to me. Then again, I personally don't think the idea of unidentified bipedal primates is all that far-fetched. I understand why others would not feel the same way as me. So, the folks who feel that Sasquatch being real is highly unlikely will probably choose the most likely explanation as 'Huntster's trackway was a hoax made by someone who knew where they were' ....and that's fine. This is where some skeptics say something like, "See, it's not
conclusive evidence...therefore it's ridiculous to look into the matter any further. 'Science' would never accept such weak evidence as reason to search, so I shall make fun of those who do!...and nobody, I mean nobody, should lower themselves to the point where they will be ridiculed by us!" I guess I'm wondering, what's wrong with saying "okay, there are other possible (which stretch credulity---but, I know, I'm saying this at a forum where I'm surely considered a "creduloid") explanations for this, but for the sake of investigation, let's
pretend that Sasquatch are real, even if just temporarily, and they make trackways now and then, and let's go look for them in a real, concerted, large scale effort and see what we can come up with?" Back to my story...The lime and shovel hinted at a possibility of premeditation, and a possibility of a grave dug somewhere. It was weak, but possible. Instead of saying "too weak, forget it.", I said "Ok, let's pretend there
is a grave...now where would
i dig it if I was the digger? Hmm, let's check over here."....and look what happened! You'll never know if you don't look, and the worst that can happen is a large scale effort may have the same results as the SETI project.
BTW, (again, not pointing any fingers) If anyone doubts the veracity of my story, I purposely left in enough details that if someone wanted to put the effort into looking into it, they can.
Regarding court...IMHO,
Current evidence is insufficient to get a judge or jury to believe there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that sasquatch exist, in a criminal court.
Current evidence is sufficient to get proof beyond a reasonable doubt that sasquatch
might exist.
Current evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sasquatch-like creatures have existed in the past.
Current evidence is sufficient to get the preponderance of evidence that Saquatch exist, in a civil court.
I would add that I,
personally, feel that the PGF does represent proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
for me. I no longer have illusions that my reasons are sufficient to convince the masses. However, I have certain talents, skills, experience, and knowledge that I base my judgement on. If you could walk in my shoes throughout my life, and see through my eyes, you would understand.
