Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
RayG said:
But if they ALWAYS gather their feet under themselves when standing, shouldn't there be multiple hoofprints in the center of an elk lay impression?

Where are they in this elk lay?

[qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-595-1153431874_thumb.jpg[/qimg]

RayG
Click to expand...

They leave parallel prints. I'm not certain where the center is is that photo, so I'll refrain from the circles and arrows for now.

The elk prints in the Skookum imprints were transiting.
 
kitakaze said:
Call me non-plus but IMHO I think this is just such a case of the type of thing that causes people to lose patience with you and write you off as being disingenuous, Lu. Makes me wonder if you really don't understand why some people get frustrated in the course of communication with you. Of course we've had the same exchange in different words more than once before.
Click to expand...

Yep. You called me "coy". I'll ignore the rest of the diatribe.

You guys have run off a few good people who might have been willing to share.

If you do a little digging and earn the trust of a serious researcher or two, you might be able to gather as much information as I have. It's kind of a complicated situation, so I won't say more.
 
LAL said:
You guys have run off a few good people who might have been willing to share.
Click to expand...

Share what? You mean like they have a Bigfoot body in the freezer and would have shown it if we weren't rude?

If you do a little digging and earn the trust of a serious researcher or two, you might be able to gather as much information as I have. It's kind of a complicated situation, so I won't say more.
Click to expand...

It's not complicated at all. Nobody can show that Bigfoot exists and "information" is no substitute for that. You seem to misunderstand the skeptical position. Testimony and secondary evidence does not cut the mustard. It does do that for you and other Bigfooters. The other side is expecting solid legitimacy that cannot be provided. Skeptics want a real animal while the Bigfooters seem satisfied with anecdote, enthusiasm and credibility. Yes, you are quite happy with an ersatz Bigfoot.
 
LAL said:
Yep. You called me "coy". I'll ignore the rest of the diatribe.
Click to expand...
It would be a diatribe if I was angry or bitter but I'm neither. As I said, I'm non-plus and simply pointing out an unsubstantiated claim which you say you don't do. It's not a big deal, it's just another case of bigfoot proponents pretending their cause for support has more merit than it really does.
LAL said:
You guys have run off a few good people who might have been willing to share.
Click to expand...
I've been very respectful of, open to, and interested in researchers who come here. I've admonished skeptics who have been disrespectul. I would defend reliable evidence of bigfoot ardently and take whatever lumps may come if I found any or someone presented it here. People following the discussion here know that. I think William is right, bigfoot is for bigfoot believers. Trust gotten from someone by nodding at everything they say is not worth getting.
LAL said:
If you do a little digging and earn the trust of a serious researcher or two, you might be able to gather as much information as I have.
Click to expand...
I've done a lot of digging and earned the trust of more than one serious researcher. The only information I'm interested in is that which involves reliable evidence.
LAL said:
It's kind of a complicated situation, so I won't say more.
Click to expand...
translation- "I'm not making an unsubstantiated claim, take my word for it." Don't sweat the front, Lu. If there was something really impressive to hear about, Meldrum would have told us.
 
William Parcher said:
Do you think they are helping to answer the question: "Does Bigfoot exist?"
Click to expand...
This question may just have an artificial sense of complexity and be really simple but either way it does put me in a rather precarious spot and I do want to preface it a little. As a someone who is skeptical of the existence of bigfoot I'm at variance with many of Melissa Hovey and Teresa Hall's opinions. The short answer is yes, I do think they are helping to solve the question "does bigfoot exist?" Surely, that is how they would define much of there efforts. It is their efforts in making show 'Let's Talk Bigfoot' that I commend. I think it's great having a show that facilitates dialogue between figures who affect much of what goes on in bigfootery and regular people with an interest in the subject. It was by them that I was able to get an answer from Meldrum on an important question that I had made some issue of. Giving a soapbox for bigfoot figures to stand on and espouse their views brings a lot of insight into the phenomenom and I think does have some affect in addressing bigfoot's existence for those that can get beyond the romantic element that the subject endears. I've knocked heads with Melissa quite a few times but the sense I get from her and particularily Teresa is not one of blind believers. I think they're interested in getting to the truth even if it does involve no bigfoot. Where I disagree with them is in their interpretation of certain claims of evidence. One on-going (and often heated) debate Melissa has instigated is on her methods of seeking to repeat Matt Crowley's findings on dessication ridges. Some people say that footers would keep believing in bigfoot until every last tree has fallen and that might well be true but for rational people not prone to clinging to fringe beliefs, I think the more serious efforts are made to find bigfoot and come up dry I think you are helping to solve the question of sasquatch existence with a pretty resounding 'no'.
 
Last edited:
Again, nobody asked me but...

For most bigfoot proponents, "solve the mystery" equals to finding bigfoot. However, bigfoot "mystery" solution seems also to be the answer to the question ""Why people believe weird things".

The (lack of) results for their efforts (as well as the lack of evidence that should be present if these creatures were real and avaliable from other sources) for a skeptic are a clear indication that there's nothing tangible, material, to be found- there are no bigfeet. So, from this POV, they are contributing to "solve the mystery", but not the way they think they are.

From the believers' POV, the efforts are compiling what they consider to be a compelling database that is supposed to back their beliefs. In doing so, they would also be contributing to "solve the mystery". "Bigfoot mystery", in their view, at each day is closer to the solution. And they keep thrilled by the imminent Christ's second comming plain daylight UFO landing at a major city bigfoot discovery.
 
First of all, let me say (because I did not see this referenced with Mr. Higgins comments). My question to Alton about the skookum cast was prefaced with the statement "I know you are not one of the primary people working with this cast, but I would still like your opinion of it" - or words very, very close to that. Also, Mr. Higgins did not confuse the Dermal Ridge issue with the Skookum Cast, as it is said the possible heel impression (or wrist, which ever you prefer) may show evidence of dermal ridges, Now, if this animal is out there what its dermal ridges may or may not look like is still open for debate.

Now, where Rick Noll acquired the 650 lb bull elk leg. Does it really matter? Do you need to see it? If you did see it and you knew where it came from would you be more apt to think Rick Noll, Alton Higgins or Dr. Meldrum were being honest about the findings once the impression comparison was done? I'm sure that information is not going to sway one person as to the identity of the animal that made the impression that is known as the "Skookum Cast", but I will ask Rick Noll the question, because it was asked.

Many may not know the name Alton Higgins, because he prefers to keep a low profile - I cant imagine why.

I appreciate your kind words and criticism Kitakazee - both Teresa and myself want a show that both sides of this issue are comfortable listening to - but we also want to disseminate good information for the general public who may be interested in the on going work.

On our radio program we do our very best to not make definitive statements about our opinions (unless its about Bigfoot braiding its hair) we allow the listener to make their own decisions. We also welcome phone calls, so the listener can have their own questions answered that Teresa or Myself may not think of.

Will our internet radio show help solve this mystery? It would be nice, but I highly doubt it. It's an internet radio show, not field research. :)
 
Melissa said:
I appreciate your kind words and criticism Kitakazee - both Teresa and myself want a show that both sides of this issue are comfortable listening to - but we also want to disseminate good information for the general public who may be interested in the on going work.
Click to expand...

So you seem to describe yourself and your show as being neutral on the question of Bigfoot. How are you going about recruiting guests? Are you actively soliciting any strong skeptics to be guests?
 
William Parcher said:
So you seem to describe yourself and your show as being neutral on the question of Bigfoot. How are you going about recruiting guests? Are you actively soliciting any strong skeptics to be guests?
Click to expand...

I would say that yes, we are both neutral while doing the show - but Teresa is someone who is very skeptical of all information in this research. We simply set aside our own view points and opinions for the show. While many seem to think they know how I feel on the issues, they would be shocked if they actually spoke to me.. LMAO.. I am much more "on the fence" and often times very critical of reports and evidence myself.

Would we invite a strong skeptic? Sure, I see no reason not to.. Researchers need to hear the criticisms of their work, to understand why the general public does not find their "evidence" so believable.
 
Ok, I'll have to ask (someone has to)...

Where's the evidence he's skeptical regarding bigfeet as real animals?

OK, I know, I pulled a Larsen...
 
Whats wrong Diogenes? Don't think "one of your own" has a strong enough argument? I happen to think there are many on this very board I would love to have a discussion/debate with - as they bring up good points that are not clouded in emotion.

RayG is one of those people. While I have found he is skeptical, he does approach it by evaluating all the information, and looking deeper into the information provided. I personally appreciate those like RayG - he gives me something to think about - without having to be ashamed that I choose to be involved in this research.

Constructive criticism is always appreciated by me :)
 
M,

You didn't answer how you recruit guests. Did you already have plans to invite prominant skeptics? You like RayG, but would you ladies exclude any others?
 
William Parcher said:
M,

You didn't answer how you recruit guests. Did you already have plans to invite prominant skeptics? You like RayG, but would you ladies exclude any others?
Click to expand...

William, our show is always willing to book an interview with a self described skeptic - but one has to agree to be interviewed first. Our shows are booked by the producers - and often times because of issues going on at the time. I'm not sure why we wouldn't want a skeptic on the show - both Teresa and myself like to hear both view points. The only people we exclude are those who want to push the "bigfoot/wormhole" crap.. I just do not have the amount of patience required to deal with someone like that - and not call them a flake or nut case on the show. :)

Diogenes, first of all, sure I would love to have someone like that on the show. But, I think those who are skeptical, yet have some knowledge of research and the issues involved would be more helpful to the discussion. I don't even know if this person has an opinion one way or the other.

I don't know why you always assume the worst. But, you couldn't be more wrong than you are right now.
 
Melissa said:
Diogenes, first of all, sure I would love to have someone like that on the show. But, I think those who are skeptical, yet have some knowledge of research and the issues involved would be more helpful to the discussion. I don't even know if this person has an opinion one way or the other.
Click to expand...

You will shortly ..

I assure you he does ..

There, now you know ...


If you were really interested in the truth in these matters, I wouldn't have had to tell you that ... Meanwhile, your agenda is showing ..:)
 
If you mean your sending him an email, thats fantastic thank you. Have him contact me if he is interested.

You know Diogenes - if anyone has an agenda, its you. I am sure you have known about this program for some time now, so why haven't you called in? You have always had the opportunity to express your point of view - yet you do not call in and ask a question or mutter a word. I think it is you with an agenda, and frankly I find that sad.

Regardless of what I and others have said about our own opinions, you still insist you know more about everyones thoughts than they do. How do you do it? Are you psychic? Seems to me you can not truly know how someone feels on an issue until you actually discuss it with them, and you never do that - you simply preach as if you are the barer of all knowledge and the rest of us are idiots who could never reach your level of enlightenment.

I also noticed you ignored my question (yet again) about members of this board being capable of handling a discussion about these issues with myself or Teresa.. Why is that? Do you think they are not up to the challenge? Answer it this time, without all the deflection.

If my agenda is about putting out factual information on the research - then yes, your right. I am tired of the misinformation, and the ufo and wormhole crowd mentality that surrounds this research. I am also tired of the group that says they see a Bigfoot every time they hit the woods (even if its only 100 yards from the road).

I may be a Bigfoot Researcher, but I am objective about it - wish I could say the same for your skepticism.
 
Yeah, pot meet kettle. You know, just because you call yourself a skeptic, that doesn't mean you are above answering simple questions.

I think your lack of response is very telling - yet again. Just wanted to note that once again, you are dodging direct questions (although you say you never do).
 
Melissa said:
You know Diogenes - if anyone has an agenda, its you... I may be a Bigfoot Researcher, but I am objective about it - wish I could say the same for your skepticism.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you want to only host a certain kind of skeptic. Besides RayG, which other skeptics do you think would be good guests?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom