Just curious where we all fell out on the forums with what we regard as the limits of our tolerance of skepticism.

Hey Dr. W., your poll is not complete without a category for those who know that the species is real, based on their own experiences.

Well the question is, what level of skepticism is warrented, and what goes beyond rational discourse. For my money, only the last choice is irrational.

I picked number three. Anything beyond that (the last two items) is, IMO, just being hard-headed.

I am pretty sure the thread was about skeptics.

Interesting that the first choice is currently in the lead. There must be a disproportionate amount of romantics on the board tonight.

Yeah, the polls about skepticism...not whether you believe or not.
I'm just curious at which point in a conversation with a skeptic you're most likely to wanna haul off and smack 'em.

Oh, for what it's worth, I voted for second to the bottom...I'd accept that as a perfectly reasonable attitude.

All five pretty well sum up where I sit.

t.

i tolerate alot from skeptics, so i chose the next to the bottom one, i always welcome a skeptic along, they can be the one to check out the weird noises in the bushes..........

Interesting choices. I put a vote in the first one.

When I was a young lad. I vividly remember a friend giving me a copy of the Argosy magazine with the Patterson-Gimlin article. Wonder what a copy of that would be worth today? Am sure my Mom threw it out many years ago, lol! Anyway, that article gave me a heavy dose of interest.

I have talked about this subject with people a fair portion of my life. As I've grown older, I find my ability to believe this could be possilble, very jaded. I do know people that claim to have seen "something". I've heard more "stories" than I'd care to consider, some good, others obvious BU&%#*IT. Other than my one little account, that I have no clue as to what it was. And I only heard something. There are a handfull of other experiences that I have no explanation for, that's just it, no explanations.

This is the rub for me, when persons you know, that have nothing to gain or no reason to tell you something that they don't believe to be true. They tell you things or have seen something. That raises my bar for the possibility that Bigfoot could exist.

I always wonder where the hell are the people who say they've seen a bf? Good for you T.T.!!!

t.

You know I think most of the skeptics would tend to follow either number one "Bigfoot might not exist, but still, the evidence is pretty compelling...still, where\'s a body?" and maybe number 4 "Bigfoot doesn\'t exist, prove me wrong."

(By the way I'm not one of them, I do believe and love those sneaky smelly hairy monkeys!!)

The thing is that all skeptics want a definite proof in a form of a body (alive or dead), any other type of proof would be considered a hoax (they always do that). So an skeptic can be an "open minded skeptic" willing to consider the possibility of the existance of Sas as long as we can actually show them Sas in a huge cage or in a big freezer; or a "hard headed skeptic" that most probably even after personally looking at a Sas body would try to argue that it is a mutant gorilla that could not be considered as a new specie (or something along those lines). Dont think youll find "in between" skeptics. So the reality of the matter is that for most skeptics until a body (alive preferably) could be presented as evidence they would not believe that good old Patty exists.

The fact is that evidence (other than the actual BF body) exits in abundance and till this day Sas continues to be threated as a myth rather than as a real specie by the skeptics and indirectly by the general public (in its mayority) that do not have any knowledge/interest in this topic and just tend to follow the skeptics ( I don't consider the general public or anybody a skeptic unless they have actually tried to informed themselves in the Bigfoot issue and choose not to believe in it by whatever reason they might have)...

And then there are the wannabees that want to use the skeptics and uninformed public to make profits of the hole issue, twisting evidence and telling lies.... Does Long/Korff/Wallace/Heironimus sound familiar to anybody? :yuck:

That's me! I'm going in with a video camera rolling. If Sasquatch bolts I got him, if he charges me I got that too, if a rock flies I got it. Heavy footsteps outside of the tent? Boom, floodlight is on and camera rolling.

The monkey better disappear into thin air, because I am gonna be all over his ass with that video camera!

I've always said that a certain kind of video or photo would serve as excellent, if not conclusive, evidence - even without a body.



I see blobsquatches. What do you see?

The fourth choice is perfectly reasonable for someone who does not have enough information to decide. It only gets a little frustrating when people see the same evidence and it means something totally different to them.

A large percentage of them refuse to accept the idea. Others think it is smart to be skeptical. I imagine others are just not convinced by the same things I am. Those people, at least can have their minds opened if you present them with compelling enough evidence. The first two groups I mentioned are not worth the effort because they aren't interested in the actual arguments, just taking the position that makes them feel smart.

I think that probably a lot of people aren't understanding the question properly, and are rating their OWN level of skepticism. Just a feeling....

Yeaph you are right Baboon!! There are a lot of blobsquatches which don't help either with the skeptics, but most of the skeptics don't even waste time with examining any evidence (being blobs or real) and automatically label most of it as plain hoax just because it is not an actual smelly BF body and that doesn't help either. Again there is a great pile of evidence as well as an event greater pile of sh*t (oh yeah!!) I still believe the actual real evidence can over power the other crapolla but is not being taken seriously part due to skeptics and part due to wannabees that either distort or dismiss the real evidence.

Man I think a video should be a good enough proof, but even if you get the clearest and sharpest video, without a body a skeptic would always look at it as a hoax.

Now looking at my statements and reasonning,

am I a skeptic of a skeptic?? Scary hum? :doh:

I voted on my pre-sighting stand. I never gave BF a lot of thought, but figured it was pretty unlikely anything that big could be out there without a body being produced. My choice was second from bottom. Then I saw one.
BSF

I voted for "Bigfoot doesn't exist, prove me wrong", that is what I get from most skeptics.

I look at all of the videos and photos. They look like hoaxes to me. I've never seen one that looks like a real BF but just happens to be blurry or obscured.



Where?



I'm talking about a video that couldn't be hoaxed. If there really is a 9-foot hairy ape, that thing caught on good video would work. Imagine a video of one catching and killing a deer, or throwing a boulder 60 feet, or a whole family doing things, or one charging the cameraman.....that stuff would work real nice!

Hey Baboon, man I totally respect your way of thinking.

I'll love if a great video of Sas can surface Baboon, it would be great to rub it on the wannabees and some "hard headed" skeptics but I think they still would demand a body and argue of the validity of the video (if not special effects they can argue a really great costume, now more than ever that the Patterson Video issue is being debated more passionately and a lot of people are trying to get profits out of the issue).

Well the pile of evidence (at least for me) is not necessarily in a form of video and photos; countless reports from different people, in different places, with different backgrounds, through out all the recent North American history (in case of Bigfoot) should be consider as an evidence (sure you'll argue the validity of most or all of them, but just the shear number of them is something that might indicate something more than a myth, hoax or prank).

There are several tracks (of the thousands casted through out the years) that have been examined and accredited as real tracks of unknow specie (s) by scholars and scientists in the related areas (anthropology and biology). DNA samples have been taken and many have not being able to to any known specie, etc, etc.... (again since I am a believer that might be just enough to consider that there is something more than a myth behind the whole issue).

Ok, you'll say most of these "evidences" don't prove Sasquatch, but hey if that doesn't convince you, then "one more video" might not do the trick even though that one and only (hopefully more than one) perfect/clear video might be real you might hesitate unless you knew the person (s) who shoot it and his/hers/their honest character (s) (again something very hard to asses as it is with the thousands of people that have reported an encounter) or unless you where there. Or then again, it would be the proof you needed to be 100% sure that Sas exists.

So either way, I think you are right into question my assumption of credible "piles of evidences", but hey since I am sold on the topic those are good enough for me...

Thanks for the comments Baboon I'll appreciate them, love to participate in a great discussion/topic.....

Yeaph I guess I am really skeptic of the skeptics.... (what the hell does that mean?)

Heck...I'm a Moron..I voted the closest to how I feel. rather than actually reading what the pole was about.
...

I voted third choice fro the top on the basis there has to be something going on...either people are really seeing something or there is some kind of strange mass Jungian archetypical experience taking place. Either proposition is fascinating to me and worth investigating.

Haha, yeah. I wonder if at that point their skepticism is enough to make them feel brave??

After YOU sir!

I voted for the last choice but even then I guess I am pretty tolerant. In truth, so called "skeptics" bore me and I would rather get into an argument with a 2nd grader than with them. In my opinion they are generally operating out of ignorance and like my bro Bob said, they are more interested in trying to appear intelligent. I consider myself and many on this site to be the true skeptics because we are the ones who don't believe everything we are told and I am skeptical that all the footprints, casts, Patti film, sightings, etc. indicate a hoax.

Proof of being a "Moron" I didn't even spell poll right ...sheesh!!!

Join the very small club.



I would love to be the one to produce that video. Imagine a staunch skeptic getting the confirmatory video of BF, then "rubbing it in the faces" of everyone including the throngs of Bigfooters! I would still not discount any of my previous skepticism (including that the P-G film is a fake), and it wouldn't suddenly make all the hoaxed evidence valid. I would be overjoyed, famous and rich all at once.



I don't regard that stuff as proper evidence. If you only go by the volume of reports and convictions of the witnesses you are forced to also accept ghosts and alien abductions.



The analysis of track evidence is suspicious. The stuff is not presented to impartial scientific analysis. Meldrum, Chilcutt and Krantz are obviously pro-Bigfoot. The DNA analysis is questionable, if it exists at all. I don't think the statements of "unknown primate species" should be taken literally.



I've already said that a proper video would convince me. It's not worth creating a "straw man" skeptic that would refuse to believe anything but a body. That's not this skeptic. Tracks are too fakeable. DNA that was properly analyzed would mean a whole lot to me. Bones or body parts would do the same.



You are a cool dude jorgsor. You should be skeptical of skeptics. But I'm no stereotype of a scoftic. I'm always going to try to rationalize my skepticism. Keep up your faith and fix your eyes and your camera on the forest. I want Bigfoot to exist more than anyone.

It's not my skepticism that would propel me to weird noises in the bushes. I want to know what is making that noise whatever it is. Bigfooters do not typically cite examples of BF physically harming anyone. So it would seem that I could approach BF with a decent level of safety. Other possible animals are apparently more dangerous than BF and I'd just have to deal with that. Either way, I'd have a damn cool video to show. If you want to go in behind me, you are welcome. You can film me filming what I find.

Imagine what we could present to the world of Bigfoot came bounding out of that bush. We would have a video of the creature (mine) and a video of the entire encounter (yours). Ready for sudden fame and fortune?

I still don't understand why we don't have videos of false encounters that turn out to be other known animals. Are these Bigfooters just wusses about getting footage of whatever is making the racket?

Totally with you on that one.

One point of contention there BEH. Before being asked to review the track cast,to my knowledge, officer Cillicut had no opinion either way.

Seems like I heard he examined the tracks with the goal of debunking bigfoot.

Have these tracks been offered to other impartial analyists besides Chilcutt to verify his findings? Have they been sent to universities or forensic labs?

Dunno if they're the same tracks, but Krantz claims to have showed some of Freeman's tracks to the FBI, and several CSI's who gave them thumbs up for being real...now...real what?!

Seems like I read about the Smithsonian and Scotland Yard examining them and giving the thumbs-up.

I voted for # 4. I could also and will also say: BF does exist. Prove me wrong. Anything beyond that is just asking for it.

There have been in the past and they pretty much came to the same conclusions he did. I'm not sure of anything recent though. But also keep in mind hes one of a very select few who have studied and catalouged both human and primate dermal patterns. It just doesnt seem that the primates are a big concern among many of the forensics depts around the nation.

I can completely agree with Jim on this (must be a first ) - Chilcutt was not pro-bigfoot before visiting Meldrum, and to be honest, I don't think he is 'pro-bigfoot' today in the activist sense - he is just saying what he knows about the casts he examined.

My only gripe is that he should have kept thorough notes, and gone about the examination in the same way he would have done if he had been at work.

That's odd. Why didn't Chilcutt do this?

How would you know what a real one looked like if they all are hoaxes you? Can you explain what one looks like then.

old thread...thought he was back

But if you're skeptical of bigfoot reports, then the reports of their peacefulness may be greatly exaggerated.



Whether sasquatch, bear, moose, or elk, chasing them into the bushes armed with only a camera doesn't give one many options to "deal with it".



Yup. Timothy Treadwell had some pretty impressive videos.



Like Treadwell?

No, thanks. I've had my share of fame. I didn't like it.

And as for the fortune, I'll pass on that, too. I've got plenty. Any more and the two-legged wolves become worse than pests; they become predators.

Huntster,, How ya doing buddy?? Got any daylight up there yet??

Crew Chief

Well, the woods are mighty big and and for someone to say that Sasquatch does'nt exist and they choose to ignore the evidence for the existance of the creature is in my opinion, well, I'm tring to be nice here, Blind! Theres more evidence for than against when it comes to Mr. Big. We don't know whats out in the woods. Theres just too much territory to really know. For someone to say,"No, you kidding, Bigfoot! Theres no way for a creature like that could exist". I mean, what did that person do, just get off the phone with God himself. I believe that there has to be a limit to one skeptisism about Mr. Big, a little opened mindedness never hurt anyone.

I'm doing great, Chief!

Getting nice up here. It's been in the 30 to 40 degree range and we're getting more daylight every day. It gets light around 8 AM and dark about 5:30 PM.

Two more months and the trees will green up!