Cryptozoology forums > Debates > Cryptozoological debates > view thread
Subject: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 6:37am 
I wrote this in response to another thread but decided (with help from a buddy) that it would be better placed here and open for debate.

Debate away my friends, I provided the info, I want to see what you think of it.

An open letter:

I was trying to explain the shift I saw in the site to another member. I couldn’t explain it until now. The site hasn’t become mostly sceptics at all. It’s become mostly debunkers. Sceptics at least will take some evidence as probable, whereas a debunker will not accept any at all. They will find something wrong with every bit of evidence presented call it a fraud and not worthy of further investigation.

The other shift I have noticed is that people tend to think of believers as ignorant, childish, and uneducated. I can only speak for myself, but I find it insulting to say the least. I personally am none of the above, yet I still believe in the possibility that a Bigfoot could exist. The question was: where are the photos. Ben provided a link to cell phone photos claiming they are not good enough, yet no one has said “Well yes, there are photos of something, but BAD ones”. Not one person that has answered this thread said they would try to do anything about it, have they? Please, by all means, go and take a picture of any cryptid and make us all happy for once. Oh, and by the way, photoshopping doesn’t count.

When I see phrases like “no photos at all”, “So many hunters looking”, and statements like this:
"Believers" seem to think it's unfair somehow that "skeptics" try and find another explanation for the image. Those darn meanies look over their precious evidence, and point out that the disturbance in the water is consistent with small fish feeding or a boat wake, or that the "black panther" can't possibly be as big as the witness claimed, since it's apparently smaller than an object of known size in the picture, or that the immature Bigfoot is remarkably consistent with a bear cub. In other words, those blasted "skeptics" are ruining the fun by finding probable explanations that have not yet been eliminated. Those explanations tend to be more probable than the cryptid alleged to be in the image.”

It really upsets me. These statements are ALL false. There ARE photos (bad ones but still photos), and WHO brings cameras hunting? A true hunter doesn’t want extra equipment hindering them or losing it if there is a chase or scuffles and usually will leave a cell phone or a camera at their campsite, or in their vehicle. Can you imagine having a beautiful deer within sight and the cell phone rings or vibrates to scare it off? C’mon people, we’re NOT that stupid are we? And “all those people” looking for cryptids is honestly how many? Of all the members on this website I can name maybe 10 GLOBALLY. The last paragraph by Halkwolf has me so confused I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. If that’s what Hawkwolf honestly believes, I feel sorry for him. “finding probable explanations that have not yet been eliminated”? Does he NOT think that MOST believers do rule out other explanations before we jump the gun and yell “It’s a cryptid!!”? I truly hope that paragraph was tongue in cheek. I know that many people will post pictures and videos just for a comment or a reaction, and there’s still more people that honestly do NOT know what a boat wake looks like, or their eyes deceive them and they see things not really there and need a second opinion. I see no harm in that.

I can’t help thinking that people just won’t post pictures here due to the attitude change at this site. I commented to Karl in another thread about the “why bother” attitude I have now. Perhaps it’s not just me that feels this way anymore? If people know they will not be taken seriously and be called lairs and hoaxers, and other such names; is it really worth submitting ANY evidence at all? Seems people would rather debate someone's mental state than the issues at hand.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: mysticete posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 11:13am 
I think it is quite possible to be skeptical on this site without driving the other side away. But too often replies move from "skeptical" to condescending. Combine this with the typical popularity contests which occur on any website, and the typical people who actively seek out confrontation, it really doesn't surprise me anymore the lack of real "debate" on this site.

Irritating children posting about werewolves and dragons also doesn't help matters
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 11:22am 
Agreed.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Hawkwolf posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 2:51pm 
PJ. weren't you the one who jumped all over me for taking quotes out of context? Where the Sam Hill do you come off doing the same thing?

I was speaking about photos. Let me try a couple of synonyms just in case that didn't work: pictures, images.

But thank you for proving my point. To the "believer", any argument that questions their "belief" is often taken out of context as a personal attack, and they sometimes take it upon themselves to respond in kind (see the whole SF Sea Serpent debacle). (And no, I'm not saying that's what you did here).

Again, if you post a picture that allegedly shows a cryptid and say "Here's a pic of the Frumious Bandersnatch ...see where I drew a red circle around where it's disappearing into the Tulgey Woods? If you squint hard you can sort of make out the tail." and the other folks see what looks like an old dead branch. you'd best be prepared to counter those explanations with more than "I know what I saw" because we DON'T know what you saw. We weren't there.

All we have to go on is the PICTURE, and we see what looks like a piece of wood to us. Unless you can provide other information that rules out the more PROBABLE explanation that your Bandersnatch photo shows a tree branch rather than a legendary animal, the photo fails to be decent evidence. And the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

I'm truly sorry if you don't see the point that some of us will ask questions, and err on the side of caution in any cryptid photo presented. We've seen too many blobsquatches, boat wakes, and seabirds passed off as "evidence", not to mention all the outright hoaxes out there.

And we've heard the usual excuses trotted out time after time: crappy cell phone camera, skittish subject suddenly encountered, etc.

Below is a crappy cell phone pic of some deer I encountered while walking my dog. I have another pic taken immediately before this one that shows the animal that appears roughly in the center of the frame in another position, so I can show that whatever is there is moving. It's by no means a great shot, but it's better than most "cryptid" photos out there. In order to get it, I had to take out my phone, switch it to camera mode, line up the shot, and hurridly take a couple of photos while trying to keep a 77 pound dog quiet and under control before the deer in this picture bolted for the underbrush. I can take anyone who wants to the same spot and show them the area. There was deer sign all over down there. I can, at will, produce comparison shots that PROVE that there's no stump or trick of shadows and light at work here. There are objects in the photo which can, if need be, be measured to provide accurate size references.In other words, I can use this picture to help support my claim that on that day last fall, I saw deer while walking my dog.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 4:01pm 
I didn't take them out of context. I stated I hoped it was tongue in cheek. Not ALL believers think that way, and that includes me. If you feel slighted by me re-posting it, I'm going to tell you what I've been told numerous times lately. "Sorry, you posted it, therefore it is open for debate. If you didn't want it discussed, don't post it".

What you don't seem to understand is that I agree with you, for the most part. But the question was: Where are the pictures. Some were provided, and yet they were dismissed. Why is that? Did you look at them? They have the same things you claim to have, even a height marker at the same spot with a person standing there for size reference. Even the person posting them admitted they were bad. But pictures they are. Now we should go on to figure out what IN the pictures, shouldn't we? I'm pretty sure there is a way to discuss these things politely and rationally.

Entity posted photos as well. My first thought was "now go into the bush and stand 75 feet away and take a picture. Can we tell it's you?" Probably not. His pictures were extremely close. Truthfully, if anyone gets THAT close to a cryptid, they BETTER have a picture with that good of quality!

"But thank you for proving my point. To the "believer", any argument that questions their "belief" is often taken out of context as a personal attack, and they sometimes take it upon themselves to respond in kind (see the whole SF Sea Serpent debacle). (And no, I'm not saying that's what you did here)."

OK then how did I prove your point if that's NOT what I did? You are condtridicting yourself. Please elaborate. Are you trying to tell me that the paragraph I quoted wasn't PURPOSELY insulting and condescending to believers in general?

And what part about people posting things for second opinions and just to get a rise out of people did you not understand? Yes, people do that. Yes sometimes it's hella annoying. I'm agreeing with you. I also agree that sightings and photos should be questioned, but the demeanor of the site seems to be "insult first and don't debate anything unless you have to." I'm speaking very truthfully here Hawk, and again, forgive me if I take things personally, but your comments really insulted me. I can't help but to think I can't be the only one that took offence. A few other comments by other members have as well, but I won't address them unless those people answer this post.

My main point is: If after 7 years of being a member here, if I (me personally) do NOT feel comfortable posting any evidence because of the "bad attitudes" here, how would a new person just coming here feel about posting anything? It's more than a little bit daunting. The "why bother" attitude is taking over because of it. And THAT'S where the pictures are. They are in the hands of people that don't wish to be made fun of or insulted. I am asking people, as politely as I can, to tone it down if they want people to debate. If the only reason people are coming here to see is people being insulted back and forth, then we have bigger problems than I originally thought.

And for the record, I inadvertantly lied to a friend today by saying I was going to post this letter and leave it be. No I will not. I think this is a very important issue that needs to be addressed, and I will appologize NOW for the oversight.

P.S. Yours is a good picture, I won't argue with that. I'm hoping someone, somewhere can post as clear of a clear picture of something we haven't seen yet, or something extremely rare. It would make my day, and I can only assume yours as well.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Wee Mad Arthur posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 6:09pm 
A lot of this has to do with the nature of the evidence, as well as what has been going on here lately. A bad photo is not good evidence. It is too easy to manipulate and we already walk a razor's edge in this field as it is. The attitude shift is a response to all the jokers, idiots, and kids who have been deluging the site with twaddle lately. It has been enough to make me throw up my hands in frustration and kept me from posting. I'm sure it is the cause of a great deal of the snarkiness as well.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 2:41pm 
Arthur, I agree with almost all you say, as usual, although I'm not sure that the attitude shift is entirely down to the Animal X-generation eejits, hoaxers & trolls. I think it's swings & roundabouts, & it'll swing again. I've rarely been that frustrated I'd not post, but I've given up replying (honestly) more than once.

The thing that irks me with some "sceptics" is this. They're happy to debunk obviously shaky or incorrect evidence (as am I), or shoot holes in inconclusive evidence, but won't, no matter how pressed, be honest enough to admit that they believe ANY of it. Or that they believe SPECIFICALLY in the likelihood of certain unknown animals/cryptids being around. That's sailing close to the winds of hypocrisy, if not downright trolling on some occasions.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 7:25pm 
Hehe. My point wasn't what was on the pictures, but the quality of cellphone cameras and why people shouldn't say that they make good enough pictures (and therefor lack of any photo of a cryptid) ;)

Just for the record ;)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 2:48am 
Yes, and MY point was are they good enough to take a recognizable picture from 75 feet away? (in the same poor lighting conditions etc...) I don't think they are. Perhaps very good at close range pictures, but not after a certain distance. If someone gets THAT close to a cryptid, either grab it and haul it in, or the picture BETTER be very good!
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Tue, Mar 3 2009, 1:42pm 
My point was to show ben his pictures were crap (those he posted that is). The resolution was crap. But plenty of new(er) phones have cams like mine. I could post other pictures where there is plenty of distance and you still get a clearer image than those ben posted. But I would have to get a new cable for starters and those pics I have on the PC are of friends who might not be too happy if I post pictures of them ;)

Point is, there should still be at least 1 or more pictures out there IMHO.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 3:14am 
And when people see that their evidence (admittedbly BAD evidence) is CRAP, why bother posting anything at all?

WHO decides what's CRAP and what isn't? Only the person that posseses the pictures and thinks "Well if they think those are bad, no one wants to look at mine either". OR "I can submit these pictures, and ask if anyone can see what I do in them" Which is part of my original post. No one posts any pictures because they aren't good enough, and when they think it IS good enough, it's still deemed "CRAP".

My point is: There are plenty of pictures. (The original post was "where are they".) IF you don't think they are good enough, that's fine, your opinion means more to you than other's opinion ever will, correct?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 3:27am 
1. Post all the evidence you/he/she/it wishes. By all means. The more the better! You seem to misunderstand me a bit. Give us all you have!

2. BUT! Showing a pixelated something from a cellphone cam that could be anything to prove that cellphones aren't good enough is not good enough. Show the picture, but do not use it as an excuse that cellphone cameras, or cheap cameras that are widespread will give NO good images what so ever.

3. I'm drinking tee here LOL... But to the point (and no hard feelings here please to all of ye): I just find it odd (this last part refers to the other two in a sense) that some people can make great pictures with cheap cams of wildlife + people are curious and many would go back and still nothing acceptable of a BF which so many people have said to have seen. Sometimes the oddity is what captures my thoughts first.

What is, in the end, good enough, BTW? A pixelated and blurry photo of something OR a picture where you can start to make out something? There is a little difference there, not?

Cheers PAtty!
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 4:41am 
When the "Current Affair Norway House" tape was released everyone was disappointed. Myself included. It was hyped as a "film of bigfoot". People demanded to see it! But, all you can see is a pixelated and blurry something walking just in front of the trees on a sandbar.

Most people dismissed it as another hoax and left it. Why is that? Because the person filming was across a river and zooming in to 300X pixelated the video so badly no-one could tell what it was. It looked OK to him on his camcorder, but it looks terrible when veiwed on a TV screen or computer monitor. If he han't have zoomed in, all you would be able to see is a dark shape, which is just as bad. Rumour says the original tape is "lost" but I don't believe it.

Bottom line is: You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If he zooms in, the picture is blurry. If he didn't, you can't tell what's there anyway. The camera doesn't record what the eye sees. How many photos have been taken when someone thinks "WOW this is great!" and you watch it or look at developed photos and wonder where the "great" went? I know it's happened to me a few times.

Below is a picture of my buddy the blue jay that visits me every year. It's taken with a Kodak Easyshare C530. 5 Megapixels. The picture is taken from about 25 feet away, but zoomed in to make the image larger. Great camera, bad picture. Now imagine it was a rabbit or squirrel or fawn and the colors closer to the color of the tree. What would be seen?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 4:17pm 
I get your point, but try to understand mine too, OK?


And they lost the original video? Yea right, and I ca walk on water. LOL
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: LadyGreenEyes posted Wed, May 27 2009, 2:10pm 
They aren't that good. I have a fairly decent (for a cell phone) cam, and it takes horrible pictures in poor lighting. There isn't any image stabilization, either. Close range in good light, I can get great shots, but at a distance, with questionable lighting and movement? No way. Even the cheaper digital cams can't always handle movement that well. I want a great picture, too, something that is clear and sharp and well-light, and has points of reference for size, but most people, even now, don't carry the equipment around for that. Even owning it isn't a guarantee that it's with you at the needed time. For example, I have a video camera with a lovely "nightshot" feature, that allows some great footage in the near-dark, but I never seem to take it with me when I would have loved later on to have done so. Recently, I missed footage of a fox we spotted on post, and several deer, and a raccoon (all in one night), and before I missed a huge owl, close and hooting at me. All known animals, though sighting the fox is a rare sight. Yet not one moment on film. It's frustrating, and I am sure the people sighting these things wish they had the right equipment at the right time, but most don't. With some sightings, hauling it in would be a good plan, but not sure about others.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: LadyGreenEyes posted Wed, May 27 2009, 2:03pm 
I don't think you should leave it alone. You are correct, and this has been happening for a LONG time now. That's THE reason I haven't been in here much lately. I simply got tired of all the nasty behavior, and seeing nothing really interesting because people don't want to be attacked by the usual crowd in here. This used to be a good site, with interesting discussions, great reports, and cool pictures. I could put up with and ignore the occasional childish post, looking for attention, because of the general quality. That quality is gone, and I have mentioned this before.

I have NO issues with discussing, in a rational and courteous manner, photos and sightings, and in fact want to see that happen. I have pointed out problems with even some of the sillier posts, in as nice a manner as possible, just in case the person was really serious. If they weren't, well, at least they could see that we are not all fools in here.

Usually, though, it's all a popularity contest, and a big insult war, and it's gotten old fast. There are some great people in this site, with a lot of varied experience and knowledge, and it's sick to see that made useless by the bickering.

I think we have bigger problems than you thought, personally, and if you think back, you will know why I say that. You saw a lot of it. And no, you weren't part of the problem; even when we disagree, I know you have always tried to be as respectful as possible.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Raynman posted Mon, Jun 1 2009, 8:58pm 
PJ, why is this turned to the "debunkers" as being the bad guys? It has been my scientific experience that good empirical data will not only hold up under methodical scrutiny, but that it is repeatable. While I understand the appeal and calling of fantasy, folklore and legend, they are usually based at least in part upon fact but are also usually a result of embellishment, whether or not intentional.
I would truly be amazed to see a true bigfoot, an unknow hominid, a simian hybrid or new species walk out of the woods or be discovered. It would be such a scientific experience to determine how it fit within the zoological record, but sadly, that is not going to be the case. Cryptids and animals previously believed extinct will continually appear, but they are supported with irrefutable scientific evidence.
If there is such a critter, why is there no irrefutable evidence? Why are all of them obscure, indeterminate, inconclusive? Why, with all of the supposed repetitive encounters with humans, has no conclusive physical evidence been gathered? Why has not one of these people taken a clear, close shot? I can even get a good picture of a friend standing in front of me with a cell phone camera. In a shot like that, they are clearly recognizable. I could show it to anyone who knew that person and 100% of those people would identify the person.
Why is there no fossil record? We have compiled an amazing array of species and evolutionary processes from the fossil record we have discovered, yet not one points to bigfoot. (Gigantopithicus does not count, the carbon date is too old)
Especially with the increase attention in the last twenty years, the hordes of folks out in the wild looking, camera traps, encroaching development, even aerial expeditions, why do we not have one bit of confirmable evidence? Not one clear photo. Not one bit of conclusive evidence, not one captured specimen, not one verifiable fossil? It is because all of the bigfoot sightings have an explanation based in fact, which is not bigfoot but some other plausible, reasonable explanation. This does not mean the people that think they have seen one are crazy or hoaxers or manipulative or deliberately deceitful, it just means their perception was incorrect. Perception is a process of human thought and processing of input data and fallible. That is why eyewitnesses are unreliable in court.
I agree the tone of this site is terrible at times. Teens will be teens, people will be vindictive and mean and a lot of folk that live online don't have the best social skills. However, I don't frequent this site because of bigfoot, rather for the other cryptids. Some extremely insightful input, posting and discussion occurs on this site, but I have pretty much stopped posting over the last year or so because of the tone of many of the discussions.
All that said, we all have our place on this site. While you may not like the "debunkers" arguments as they attack your beliefs, facts are facts. I will be the first to publicly eat unsalted crow and applaud the long-time believers if a true bigfoot is discovered and scientifically supported and presented. Until then, I continue my stance, "show me the evidence".
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Rainbow Medicine Man posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 9:26pm 
Were's that Frumious Bandersnatch? I want one! Heck, I NEED one!
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Crypto-Joe posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 10:05pm 
I'm with you Clem. LOL

Joe
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Kronosaurus posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 1:56am 
Seriously, Hawkwolf, how much more can you prove HIS point? Someone makes a very valid point, and you say they are being ridiculous because they don't want their beliefs shaken. I don't even BELIEVE in almost all cryptids and I still think many people on this sight are overly cynical, as I have stated in previous posts. Me, I prefer to be the INVESTIGATIVE skeptic, who doesn't necessarily believe in cryptids but does think they are worth taking a second look at.
Oh, and on a side not, I do not see how a deer, an animal that is USED TO HUMANS, has any relevance to this topic. Please, in the future, try to realize that different animals have different behavioral patterns.
While it is highly unlikely that there is a bipedal ape wandering North America, it is STILL worth looking into.

Yours Truly
A Frustrated Kronosaurus
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 2:41am 
Yes Krono, you're one of the "good guys". Even though you are a sceptic, you debate what's necessary and investagte for everyone's benefit. Speaking only for myself (and not for all believers) I appreciate that.

And just to be a tad bit goofy here, I'm a woman so the first line should read "HER point" not "HIS point" *giggle*
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Kronosaurus posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 3:26am 
I apologize. That was my bad. I feel, well, what's the word, stupid, I think. Next time, I will check profiles first before making assumptions about gender.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 3:32am 
LOL not a problem. I added that mostly for clarification purposes (and for a giggle). I wasn't sure who you were talking about at first, then I realized "Oh wait, that's ME, I'm female tho".

I've been called MUCH worse than that (even of this site!)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: MJLehde posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 8:18pm 
Now hold the fort. It might be that this site has taken a leaning towards skeptics or even debunkers but I fail to see where the harm is in that? If Bigfoot can't survive the slings and arrows of doubt tossed his way by the likes of little old me then I would suggest that his fur covered hide is way too thin to begin with. I've never said that there aren't any photos of Bigfoot but I have asked how it is that after 40+ years the Patterson Gimlin Film is still the gold standard of Bigfoot film/photos? It's true that I have answered "no" when asked whether skeptics didn't have a burden of proof of their own when it came to either proving that the PG Film wasn't real or that Bigfoot didn't exist. I'm sorry but the burden of proof is upon those who are making the extrodinary claim and not those who have their doubts about that claim. The cell phone photos that you mention being posted were interesting and might have been a giant North American Mystery Ape but they also might have been a trick of light and shadow or even a shot taken while walking past the St. Louis Zoo's Jungle of the Apes at a good clip. They weren't conclusive but I did look at them and have not said that I thought the taker was either a lunatic or hoaxer. They might have been either or even sincere, I have no idea but unless I can actually see the zipper I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. Suggesting that the questioning nature of many here has caused people to be less inclined to post pictures or tell their stories strikes me as a cop out. If everything were accepted without a single question being asked or doubt being raised then what would anyone be accomplishing? Seems to me that if you've got something that's on the level then it ought to be able to stand up to some questions. There are sites on the web that accept anything and everything with nary a raised eyebrow, "What's that, you say you were abducted by Bigfoot and Elvis in a flying saucer and given an anal probe while hovering over Atlantis! Welcome brother", but you're not on those sites are you? If you're here because you have a difference of opinion on questions involving cryptids and cryptozoology with skeptical people like me then bravo, lets fight it out. I've yet to see a belief or opinion, at least one that was worth two cents, that couldn't stand a little questioning and debate. If the belief is so fragile that it can't take a bit of tossing around then it probably wasn't worth holding in the first place.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: McHaggis posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 8:28pm 
I'm probably one of the biggest sceptics on this site, but occasionally there are sightings that are reported that you have a gut feeling there is something about them, which makes you sit up and wonder.

Pj's experience is one of them, and yet, if you asked me if I thought BF existed, I would say I doubt it, because of the lack of any good physical evidence.

And you are right about the difficulty it getting images of cryptids. Most sightings are fleeting and last a few seconds. I have been in the forest carrying a camera, and I've seen dozens of deer, foxes and the occasional mink, otter and badger. And just how many did I manage to get a picture of? One. And that was of a deer in a small valley just below me. By the time you spot an animal, lift up your camera, look through the view finder, try to find the animal in your view finder, and take a pic, the animal has gone.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: busterggi posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 8:56pm 
I hope you aren't listing me with the debunkers. Admittedly I'm very skeptical but I've often expressed that I find bigfoot a puzzle I can't explain and there are other crytips I find fairly likely, though not some of the outrageous ones like mothman or the bipedal chupacabra.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Cisco posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 10:41pm 
Its an interesting topic - the issue of "proof" versus "non-proof".

A picture of a bigfoot is "proof" to some people, photoshop to others.

And, you can't really have a picture that "proves" that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Thats illogical.

Yet, it seems some people will gladly latch on to that second kind of proof - that "there has been no verified picture, video, body of a bigfoot, therefore it doesn't exist".

Now, consider this other topic, using the same kind of proof:
"We haven't been attacked again since 911 thanks to the actions by the Bush admin to keep us safe. That is proof his policies worked."

Here we have "absence of counter-proof as proof".

You can't really say that there is proof something doesn't exist. The only thing you can really say is "such a thing has not been proven to exist".

To say "I believe Bigfoot exists" means you lend enough credence to the evidence (or perhaps you've seen a bigfoot yourself), that leads you to decide that bigfoot is in fact real.

To say "I do not believe Bigfoot exists" means you do not lend enough credence to the evidence.

To say "Bigfoot does not exist" means .. you are illogical.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 2:03am 
Thank you Cisco! That sums up what I wanted to say very well.

The thing is, people ask for evidence (not PROOF that's a different can of worms)and when some is presented, it is automatically dismissed or not even talked about at all. People's mental states are questioned, or they are drunk, stoned, or their grammar and spelling is horrible and the subject never gets debated.

I'd like to see a few more debates, and not the typical " they don't exist" and the breakdown of a thread with people arguing instead of debating what the poster orginally intended to discuss. I'd like to see WHY people feel that way, discuss what the evidence is, not the person that submits it.

For example I'm going to use ABCs (it seems popular lately). Instead of saying they don't exist, add the "why" they don't, or can't. There are very smart people here, I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to learn a thing or two instead of being told my grammar and spelling are bad.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: beach_bum posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 7:26am 
/delurk

I agree that people can be dogmatic about the non-existence of bigfoot, just as they can be irrational in their belief that the opposite is true; however, the mass of evidence (or lack thereof) strongly suggests that bigfoot does not exist and therefore, unless we've had an experience like /PJ's, it would seem more reasonable to pitch our flag in the disbeliever camp. The lack of pictures, body, etc, does not "disprove" bigfoot's existence but it does give the rest of us good reason not to believe.

"I believe there are steak-fried tomatoes growing on the dark side of Jupiter" and "I don't believe there are steak-fried tomatoes growing on the dark side of Jupiter" might both be logically on the level in a structural kind of way, but there is a significant, substantive difference between the two claims, based on our general scientific knowledge about tomatoes and Jupiter. Just as in the problem of the existence of bigfoot, we can't "prove" either absolutely (what can we prove in this way?) but reason certainly favors the latter belief.

One further illustration:

This problem is similar to belief in the Christian God. Approached in a purely rationalistic, scientific way, the arguments against God's existence (the problem of evil, the problems inherent in the nature of "spirit", etc) favor disbelief in God. However, if we have an experience of God, then our belief in God is justified (that is, we have good reason to believe -- reason that may outweigh the rationalistic arguments) at least in a personal way.

I think if we're less strong in our language, and replace "proof" with "good reasons" or "justifiable", we sidestep the problem raised.

Although I'm quite inclined to believe in creatures as extraordinary as trolls and dragons, holding that science is a perceptual box that fails to grasp an absurd amount of what is, I tend to sympathize with the frustration of the sometimes-abusive-sceptics on this site: it is difficult to be patient with someone who believes something without any apparent, good reasons -- especially if they're pushy.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: ben posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 10:50am 
Very well said, cisco.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 7:32pm 
OK. Think of it this way then. It is ODD that there are no photos of a 2 meter + bipedal hominid walking the forests in NA where there are many forms of cameras people have on them. Not ONE SINGLE picture. And then there are no other samples of reliable evidence either. Hair/fur always came back as inconclusive. No scat. Only 1-2 prints usually. Can't even follow the path it walked it seems.

So let's stay by the ODD definition then ;)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: MJLehde posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 1:49am 
Well it isn't true that there are NO photos or that there isn't "one single picture". There are many pictures that many people claim are of Bigfoot but they are of questionable quality or origin. By questionalbe I mean that either they are of a poor enough quality that they don't show much beyond a blurr or the picture is suspect, usually due to the picture taker. I would say that the Patterson Gimlin Film falls into that last group. As for the track casts there are hundreds that have been made over the years but as they are so easy to fake and there are so many poeple faking them I question whether they prove anything. Mnay of the eye witnesses are very compelling but witnesses are among the least reliabale sources of evidence. What I need to see, in order to accept Bigfoots existance would be some sort of concrete proof and by that I mean a body or body part. A bone of an unknown primate found in North America would probably do the job but so far nothing of that sort seems to be forth comming. I don't think that something that big could be living among us and not leave behind something more than what we've been shown so far. There ARE pictures and casts and witnesses and even claims of scat and fur but all those things don't constitute anything like real proof for most people unless they already go into the equation wishing to believe.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 2:34am 
Hi MJ

The thing is most people will NOT offer evidence as PROOF, only as evidence to "springboard" further investigations if warranted. People saying "there are no photos, hair evidence is inconclusive, no plaster casts" etc...are being contradictive. They exist, they are there but as mentioned, they are poor evidence at best and never proof. And, to a debunker, there isn't a cryptid to prove, so all evidence isn't worthy anyway.

One of my beefs is the people stating these things never try to remedy that situation. Believer or sceptic it doesn't matter. If they think better is available, please produce it for all of us to see. If they don't believe in the existance of any cryptid at all, why choose to be "snarky" with those of us that do believe, making us feel like no matter what the evidence is we provide, it isn't going to be considered anyway.

At the risk of sounding childish I'm am going to add that we are trying to provide evidence, at least when some is offered, comment what is wrong with it and WHY it isn't good enough to accept. THAT is debate.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: MJLehde posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 3:44am 
Hi right backatcha /PJ and okay, your suggestion sounds fair enough. I am willing to look at the evidence that is offered and like to think that I have an open mind about most things. I find cryptozoology to be fascinating at many levels even though I doubt that most of the cryptids that are most popular, (BF, Champ, Nessie) exist. My doubt springs from my conviction that after the amount of time spent searching for these animals there should be more compelling evidence for their existance than I have been shown so far. I would love for them to be real and would be overjoyed to be wrong but that old Missouri thing (you have to show me) keeps getting in the way of my belief. If you would like an example of a piece of evidence that isn't, for me anyway, good enough to accept I can offer the Patterson Gimlin Film. Leaving aside the fellow who claims to have been the man in the suit and the two outfits that claim to have made the suit (who knows they might be hoaxing the hoax), there are still a host of problems I have with the film. Some refer to it as the most famous home movie of all time but it's worth remembering that the film was made as part of a wildlife documentary back in the 1960's, which I remember seeing as a kid, and that the two went out to film Bigfot, and then did, with a camera that they had rented for the weekend. Considering that they rode horses to and from the place where they made the film Patterson and Gimlin left themselves something like an hour window to find and film the creature. Now is that impossible,,,no it isn't impossible in the strictest sense but it does set almost every alarm bell ringing in my mind. I remember a fellow telling me once that for him it was proof of what a great tracker Patterson was because he was able to find and film a Bigfoot in so little time. Those who say that a human can't replicate the walk or gate that the creature has in the film are correct but only assuming that the animal is the size that Patterson and Gimlin said that it was. We don't have any good scale so it's necesary to take that on faith and where extrodinary clams go I confess to having very ittle faith. Others say that they can see the muscles moving beneath the fur and that couldn't be faked while others look at the same thing and see football pads shifting. There have been books written for and against the film but rather than go on forever I guess the queston is, is the film evidence? Yes it is evidence but from my perspective, and mine alone (I don't pretend to speak for anyone else), it is evidence of such a poor quality and questionable origin that I have no qualms about dismissing it. Eye witnesses who are sincere about what they say that they have seen should not be dismissed out of hand. I don't assume that the witnesses are all fakers or degranged, although some could be, but think it proper to give people the benefit of the doubt. Even so I think it possible that they could be sincere in their report but still mistaken in their identification of what they saw. Those have to be taken on a case by case basis anyway. Is there a picture or film that I would call such compelling evidence that I would change my suspicion that Bigfoot is probably not real,,,maybe if Bigfoot were filmed on the podium next to President Obama during the swearing in ceremony in Washington DC last month I would have considered it but in this age of photo shop the camera not only lies it often lies like a big dog. I guess real proof is going to require a body, live or dead. I DO think it very reasonable to ask how it is that we don't have a body after this much time spent looking. I suppose I should fess up and say that I think that the stories of some secret goverment agency that works world wide and for the last hundred plus years to keep Bigfoot a secret from the public for reasons never fully explained is a conspiracy yarn that makes all the old goofy Kennedy Assassination conspiracy stories seem tame and sane by comparison so I don't consider that to be a valid reason why there is no body. There are those who say that there can't be a Bigfoot and that's all there is to say and there are also those who say that there must be a Bigfoot and the discussion is closed. I don't think that there is one based upon what I have both seen and not seen but I AM willing to consider other opinions which are based upon other criteria.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 4:26am 
And that's all I can ask for isn't it? Open and honest discussions/debates WITHOUT mudslinging and namecalling and "attitude".

And I can't help thinking if debunkers don't believe in any cryptid at all, why are they on a site that deals with them? Sceptics I can understand: Curiousity and hope. But if someone flat out does NOT believe no matter what and has no interest in evidence at all, what's the point of being here?

(This question is not directed at only YOU but I'd like your opinion)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: MJLehde posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 5:27am 
Every group has it's elements that the rest would prefer to, if given half a chance, disown. Among skeptics its that minority that seem to get their jollies from telling little children about Santa Claus and then watching them cry. My involvment with CSI, (comittee for scientific investigation), used to be CSICP (comittee of the scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal) by the way I liked the old moniker better as it didn't invoke confusion with a television homicide series, came about by way of the assassination of JFK and it's accompanying mythology and had nothing to do with cryptozoloogy. I did a series of shows, news talk radio, built around the Kennedy legend and what was and what wasn't true and that brought me into contact with CSI. I had always found cryptozoology to be an interesting subject from several angles and taking the skeptics path was most natural for me. All the same I have observed some members of my own group are just as dogmatic and harsh in their dealings with others as any Bible thumper that I've ever encounterd, all the while claiming to be enlightened. The extreme of any group tends to originate in the nest on the far side of the tree where the cracked eggs are hatched. That goes for skeptics as well as believers. Among believes it might be those who see a global US gov conspiracy hiding beneath their bed each night intent on killing presidents, creating 9/11, taking over the world finaicial system, hiding Bigfoot bodies and carrying out anal probes on sleeping citizens from their stealthed UFO, (you get the picture) and will scream that you are a part of the conspiracy if you once question them or their ideas. Among skeptics it would be those who consign to the intellectual ash heap anyone who might believe other than they do and rather than engage in honest debate would prefer to simply dismiss as an idiot not worthy of their notice anyone with whom they disagree. My observation is that the extreme of the believers tend to be nutty as a granola bar and the extreme of the skeptics tend to be arrogant butt heads. Frankly if I have to choose among the extreme I prefer the believers as they are at least entertaining, so long as you keep the sharp objects away from them. Most people are somewhere inbetween. Not exactly sitting on the fence so much as in one camp or the other but still not willing to be rude to their opposite number across the divide. The debunkers come for the fight just as the hard core/true believers do. Neither sees any reason for debate because they "already know" and dismiss the other side as either tools of the conspiracy or their intellectual inferiors. PJ, you and I are on different sides of this debate but for one experience being shared or missed we might be together on either side. You don't strike me as a nutty sort so I'm guessing that you sit closer to the middle. I hope that I don't strike you as an arrogant butt head so you can then assume the same about me. You've heard my thoughts. Why do YOU think that the debunkers are found on this site and also why do you suppose the true/nutty believers also travel these waters?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 7:36am 
True/nutty believers I can understand. They are looking for likeminded people to talk to. Easy enough. And yes, they bother me too if they state everything as fact and leave it that way without trying to debate it. I won't name anyone but if you've ever been to the E vs C forum; WOW a few believers go overboard and can get quite harsh and rude as well.

Debunkers (total NON believers) have me stumped. Why go to a website of something you have no interest in? Makes no sense to me unless you are right, and they come here for the fight (which I see as counterproductive but that's just me).

There's not too many people I think of as arrogant buttheads. LOL. As I stated earlier, I learn much more when I sit and read (listen?) to what people have to say and stop dismissing everything. If someone can make me stop and think, it makes my day that much better.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: MJLehde posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 9:24am 
I've been to the E vs C forum and made the mistake of putting my two cents in. I finally bowed out after a couple exchanges, polite enough but frustrating all the same, and might ejoy watching the fracus from afar but have no plans of opening my yap in there again.

There are several sites where true/nutty believers could go where they won't have to defend their position so why stay here? This site is something of a free fire zone in that regard so if someone comes here they don't have to have a chip on their shoulder but they should understand in advance that questions will be asked and ideas weighted. When I hear some, I don't mean you, complain that the skeptics make research more difficult because they ask too many questions I have to wonder what sort of "research" they want. It sounds more like a mutual rah rah society that they want.

The debunkers you describe might also be in search of converts to their way of thinking. I wasn't kidding when I said that I have had some, and I mean people I know, get right in my face because they seem to feel that I wasn't enough of a skeptic about enough things to suit them. I doubt they get many converts, no more than the true beleivers who are also trolling for fresh meat, but it seems to make them happy at some level I don't understand. Keep in mind that I would make a terrible missionary or crusader, "What's that, you believe different from me and are happy doing so!!!!Okay, I'm cool with that". See what I mean, not much original zeal on my part to expand the ranks of the faithful.

I think this is a pretty good crew around here. Not too many from either extreme but enough to provide entertaiment and it's pretty darn difficult to read through this site and not learn something new on a daily basis.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Tue, Mar 3 2009, 1:46pm 
All evidence is considered, even from me ;) BUT then people should do more effort to find the evidence! So far I ain't biting.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 3:23am 
And so far you aren't submitting any evidence or making an effort to find any either, are you? If you are not part of the solutuion, you are part of the problem.

You can't complain about the efforts of others if you aren't willing to make an effort yourself.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 3:42am 
I guess this is mostly BF related... Here in Norway I can't find any. Actually, cryptids in general are rather rare here. If I can help, tell me how! So it will be harder for me to do the effort others in NA should have done long ago (At least go back to the scene and look for SOMETHING... This is not directed at you of course).... But I do want to go Selma hunting one day (All I need now is money) ;)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 4:16am 
And that is the most common reason many people don't go cryptid hunting (instead of regular hunting). There isn't any nearby, and it's expensive!

I HAD (past tense) the luxury of searching all I wanted for free. I lived in a "hot zone" for years. Not so much going on where I am now, altho I did investigate 2 thirty year old sightings. I thought it was funny when I found out one was a guy I worked with for 6 months and because he's older, went back to his real name and not his nick-name. The file was under "Eddy" or "Red" and he is known as Edward now. I also went call blasting and pissed off a ton of owls LOL! But we didn't find anything worth posting about, so I haven't.

Ed still believes he saw a bigfoot walk through his field back in the 70's. The height of the wheat only reached the "man's" hip, whereas when Ed walked into the field, it was just over his waist. No evidence, no proof, but a cool story all the same
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Entity posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 4:18pm 
Cool stories are always good to have!

But them owls didn't attack you, eh? Good thing ;)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Karl posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 4:55am 
Cisco, I used the same logical fallacy in another topic: We can't find Bigfoot, therefore it must be able to hide from us.

It's true that we cannot prove nonexistence, but that doesn't mean something exists. A complete lack of irrefutable evidence makes the probability of nonexistence very strong.

Paul Bunyon does not exist. Pecos Bill does not exist. The more popular holiday icons do not exist. If someone tells me that they do exist, and I can't prove that they do not, is there suddenly a possibility that they exist?

As to the last line of your post; to be true it must be supported by the line preceding it. To be effectively supportive, the question must be answered: What evidence?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Cisco posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 8:17am 
The evidence that exists:
prints
dermal ridges
hair
video
photographs
vocal recordings
witnesses

yes each one of them is questionable. But evidence does not become "weaker" evidence, because what it points to is something many people do not want to believe exists. If all the prints and ridges and hair and witnesses had to do with people seeing a type of wolf, many people would suddenly view this evidence as "strong" evidence. Why? Because it points to something they are more prone to believe in.

Evidence is evidence. It doesn't get weaker or stronger simply because of the thoughts in the minds of people. But thats the way people are.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Karl posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 9:45am 
Evidence isn't weakened by disbelief; it's weakened or strengthened by scientific evaluation.

It doesn't matter if people accept the evidence of a wolf over that of Bigfoot. What matters is if the evidence of one or the other passes muster, and continues to be evidence, or proves to be just another artifical fiber, or wooden footprint.

So far, nothing on your list has passed muster with mainstream science. They aren't just questionable; they've all been rejected, save by a few rogue scientists who have more than shown that their results are effected by confirmation bias to some degree.

Evidence isn't evidence just because someone says so; it must be established as such by reputable scientific evaluation. So far, no cryptozoological evidence has done so.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: BillB posted Sat, Feb 28 2009, 11:16pm 
PJ, no one should feel intimated to post a photo of something on this site. But they should recognize that a photo (or video), no matter how interesting, is not absolute proof of the existance of a cryptid and is therefore arguable. Some photos (and videos) are of something so indisguishable that they are meaningless, others are of animals (or natural events) that are identifiable to many people, while only a handful are truely inconclusive.

When someone honestly posts something in here and says, "What is this?", that is a request for help in identifying something that they don't recognize. I've seen a lot of "evidence" of things that I didn't recognize in this site (and elsewhere), but I've come to appreciate that there are a lot of people in here more knowledgable than I. Answers sought by the other members of this site are likely to be found. The group knowledge available at this site is appreciable and is a great place to look for some answers to some personally puzzling questions. I recently posted an article about a large rat that I found quite suspicious. Some of the responses here has caused me to reevaluate my position on the existance of rats of that size (or nearly that size) and move from being a skeptic on the matter to "sitting on the fence".

But if someone posts "evidence" and expects everyone to believe their explanation of what the "evidence" represents, then they are in for a rude surprise. Personally, I think they get what they deserve.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 2:19am 
But Bill, that's exactly what's been happening. If someone thinks blurry photos are PROOF then yes, they are in for a surprise. It doesn't need to be rude in any way.

As others mentioned, they are NOT proof, they are evidence (and bad evidence at that) but still evidence, aren't they? I absolutely agree with everything you've said otherwise. The only "proof" that I would even consider is a body (alive or dead) with scientific verification saying "Yes this is what we were looking for, this is a ______ "(insert cryptid here). Everything else is debateable evidence only.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: BillB posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 3:54am 
Each of us have fuse and our fuses are not equal in length. I'm pretty patient and can tolerate somethings longer than others. But when the fuse reaches the explosive, it's over.

I've noticed that some people in here have much shorter fuses than I, while some seem to never get riled. Some will try to use humor to approach someone who's stepped over the line, others can be brutal. But I think that's the chance that everyone takes when posting in here. Some enjoy heated debate more than others. When debating points of belief vs matters of fact, it seems that civility does occasionally fall by the wayside.

I think it comes down to the idea that if someone can't stand the heat, they should stay out of the kitchen.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 4:37am 
I can't argue with that, and of course I would apply that to both sides (and fence sitters as well). If you get to the point you are posting against a PERSON (or group of people)and not the issue, it's time to back away and re-think.

And the civility issue (IMO only) has been more than just occasional lately. We can use all sorts of excuses, but that's all they are. Some posters here have passed the line of even brutal and into the realm of downright trolling to rile people up and get negative responses. IMO it shouldn't have to be that way.

I am as guilty of it as others sometimes, but I honestly DO step back and re-think things through and sometimes will take forever to answer a post that has upset me. I think about what in particular has bothered me and why, and address it as well as I can, and edit and re-edit it so I DON'T sound overly bitchy. It took me over 4 hours to write the original post here! LOL
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: BillB posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 7:41am 
PJ, you are one of the contributors to this site that I enjoy reading. We don't agree on everything, but we seemed to have agreed to disagree LOL
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 8:02am 
Well thanks Bill. I enjoy talking to many people, even those I don't agree with! I learn a lot when I stop ARGUING and DEBATE instead.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Crypto-Joe posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 4:40am 
Amen!

Joe
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: ben posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 11:05am 
The simple fact is that most of the people here have not seen a BF. We have. They dont believe us or understand us because we dont have proof. And honestly I dont care, Because I have all the proof I need, and I could care less what others think of that fact.

Skeptics feel the same way we do, only the other way around, but thats ok! They get technical and its fun to debate them.

And what cisco said.

And skeptics, you are needed here as much as believers are, so dont get mad at me!
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 11:24am 
LOL yes I agree with that as well Ben! We NEED skeptics here. This is not a back patter society where everyone has to agree with everyone else. And you can't have a debate without an opposing side, can you?

What I don't like is the total debunkers only coming to the site to disrupt debates, make negative comments to people, and not addressing the questions asked at all. If they want to participate, I am asking them to please make the effort to address the quesions asked not just say "Your spelling sucks, you are stupid because such and such doesn't exist" blah blah blah so on and so forth. At least have to courtesy to explain WHY they feel that way, offer examples etc...
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: beaver posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 12:06pm 
If the arrow of this letter finds its mark, someone named Stu will have a shaft and feather sticking out of the back of his head.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 1:33pm 
Yet again, you're to be found trolling for a response from me at the bottom of a thread, while adding nothing whatsoever to the debate. Correct? Response is:

the 'open letter' was not directed at me. Ask its poster.

Read my latest blog & tell me I'm not up-front.

Keep your opinions to yourself unless you have something to add to a discussion other than poor attempts at baseless criticism.

Yep, I think that arrow found its mark alright - you.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 1:33pm 
Funny you should say that. NO this post was NOT intended for Stu, but for every person of the membership. But I do not wish to discuss the man without his knowledge or without him here to defend himself if need be. And YOUR post is the perfect example of what needs to be stopped.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 1:42pm 
Here I am, the man who blogs about his belief in the likelihood of the existence of cryptids the world over. Discuss away.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 1:56pm 
Thank you Stu!

The " close friend and buddy" I have mentioned 3 times in my latest postings is...You guessed it! STU!!

And if people are wondering exactly WHY he isn't the sole target of this thread is because he DOES admit to the existance of certain cryptids, and will debate and debate WELL. He will also admit mistakes and apologize if need be. He may seem harsh at times, but I know his sense of humour, and I also know that a lot of the time that HIS targets often deserve the harshness they recieve. Do I agree with it? No I don't, but I can understand it. I do not understand the random "dissing" of people for no other reason besides they have nothing else to say.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 2:35pm 
Can I use that as a reference in my application to join Cryptomundo?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 2:43pm 
Absolutely. Throw in the fact I'm in Jerry's book and you're a shoe in! LOL
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 2:51pm 
That'd be a shoo-in. Can't go against the sole of the thread......

I note a distinct lack of "sceptics" replying here, outside of those whom I expected. I must say that one in particular has surprised me in saying the views of "believers" are sometimes "childish" (I do have respect for him btw). To say this & then Announce that he's not posting for a while because of the currently larger debates & views on site that he holds no truck with is unexpected. And a mite "childish" itself, I'd say, if I didn't know him to be such a good debater & proponent of his own views. I think your thread is forcing a few issues either way. And even if I don't agree with all you say, well, it can only be a good thing. But I don't expect everyone to be as honest or upfront.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Irishtheruler posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 7:52am 
My thoughts on that
shoo-in
business.

-Irish
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 12:08pm 
"Shoo in" was originally a racetrack term, and was is applied to a horse expected to easily win a race, and, by extension, to any contestant expected to win an easy victory. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of the term in print dates back to 1928. A "shoo in" was originally a horse that was expected to win a race, not by virtue of its speed or endurance, but because the race was fixed. The sardonic "subtext" of the original usage, now lost, was that the designated horse would win even if it were so lackadaisical in its performance that it simply wandered somehow up to the finish line and had to be "shooed in" to victory.

Sorry, couldn't help it, being an ex-racing man.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: McHaggis posted Mon, Mar 2 2009, 1:39pm 
Looks like we've got another topic to chat about at the BCIB conference bar.

I used to work for Billy Hills in the Old Kent road and at Blackfriars Bridge in London.

:o)
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: kybrowncoat posted Sun, Apr 12 2009, 5:46am 
Does that make you a Master debator, Stu?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Cryptovet posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 5:08pm 
Wow something happend. I stopped visiting this site even though a skeptic a got anoyed by the level of debate and so often the level of arguments on both sides. Not that I have anything against teenagers but when I get boo'd away out of the chatroom for wanting to chat about cryptids and they want to chat about what to do after school, I really feel like I had no reason for participating in the discussion anymore. I think there needs to be a certain understanding of mutual respect as this seemed to be lacking here at a certain moment. Maybe we need some administrators who gard the chatroom and forum I don't know really. To be honest I have no solution to offer other then starting a new site or just leaving here till the less serious get bored and we may return
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 5:52pm 
It's not a moderators job to teach anyone how to respect and be civil to one another. Their job is to control it if it gets really bad. It's a problem that needs to be pointed out but self corrected. If people can't do that and it gets out of hand, THEN the moderator's job is to step in and either warn or ban the offending person.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Mark57c posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 6:21pm 
Hello /PJ!
Great Posting!
I figure that I must be an anomaly here on this site. A 52 year old professional male who has NOT seen a cryptid and yet I believe. I believe that ‘something’ IS happening. I believe because of the historical, cultural and numerical happenings added together to form a strange reoccurring type of event that won’t go away. I believe that if a person pulls back from the phenomena you can actually start to see the forest from the trees. Pull in too tight to any one area, time period or culture and it looks explainable or debunk-able. Stand back and it seems that we are dealing with something odd. Something that is not quite so easy to dismiss. Proof? I have none. Just reams and reams of data. And data establishes patterns and patterns establish events across a wide swatch of times, locations and cultures. The truth is out there, and it may turn out to stranger than any of us can imagine.
I am not particularly disturbed by challenges to my thought process. I consider them a gage by which I can re-examine my theories. Also I could be mistaken on any number of the finer points. However, something IS going on, of that I am fairly secure in my own mind.

Mark
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: N. Mihalos posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 7:22pm 
Hey Mark, you saw this newspaper clipping before right?

BFRO Report 14338: Old newspaper article (Titusville Morning Herald - Pennsylvania) about sightings near Orestimba Creek in the Diablo (Devil) Mountains

Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Mark57c posted Sun, Mar 1 2009, 7:51pm 
Hello Nick!
I am not sure that I have seen these particular articles before. But I have seen similar reports from the time period. Look at the matter-of-fact approach to the written accounts at a time when the world still seemed large and full of mystery.

Mark
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: hcahcsroRRorschach posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 5:16am 
There are no photos which aren't hoaxes. A Google search for "bigfoot sasquatch" brings up not one photo or image of anything even debatable, aside from stills from the Patterson film. I went well over 10 pages deep. Not one.

The only video which is still debatable is the Patterson film. Everything else has been ruled or admitted to be a hoax, even the "good" ones.

It's not being a "debunker" when the person is able to reasonably rule every photo and video out (minus one) when none of them show a "real" creature, as described; that's being reasonable. I've seen one photo/video on here which made me hesitate, and that's Roger Patterson's. Aside from his footage, every single other piece is, well, a 'piece.'
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Wed, Mar 4 2009, 8:54am 
That's another point well made. If it's nothing BUT hoaxes, why bother posting?

It's a viscious circle spot man. Damed if we do, damned if we don't. No one wins. I can post pictures of what the camera sees, but not pictures of what I saw. If it's a branch, or grass, or whatever, then move on to the next one.

I know I'm going on the "what ifs" here, but WHAT IF one (only one!) CAN'T be proven? Shouldn't we look into it a bit further?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: hcahcsroRRorschach posted Thu, Mar 5 2009, 6:06am 
Couple weeks ago, I was talking to a guy who I work with that has seen one. 20 years later, as he was telling it, I looked down and saw the hairs on his arms stand up and goosebumps rise. Speaking in terms of bigfoot, when I want to be entertained by lowbrow nonsense, I'll look at bigfoot pictures and videos. When I want to learn something, I'll listen to the stories.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Thu, Mar 5 2009, 6:56am 
But the question was where are the pictures? There's 1000 reasons why there isn't any good ones, but IMO ALL of them can't be hoaxes. Mis ID's sure, even another animal totally. BUT we have to look at them first to find out!


I love watching people with sightings re-tell their encounters. So much can be seen in body language!
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: TheDirtyOne posted Thu, Mar 5 2009, 4:18am 
An open letter....
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: hcahcsroRRorschach posted Thu, Mar 5 2009, 6:11am 
A closed letter...


*or*

an open one...


depends on your point of view.

Subject: Re: An open letter
From: TheDirtyOne posted Thu, Mar 5 2009, 9:37pm 
Your picture should've looked like this....
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: hcahcsroRRorschach posted Fri, Mar 6 2009, 4:53am 
Go Cowboys!
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: TheDirtyOne posted Sun, Mar 8 2009, 8:01pm 
Or Beavers....
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: /PJ posted Fri, Mar 6 2009, 2:19am 
*giggle* Oh you guys!

But honestly, I thought you'd run with the "body language" thing instead? Too easy maybe?
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: kengod posted Tue, Mar 31 2009, 10:57am 
hello people of earht been a while since i have bene on here . my bad but over the yrs i have been a member i have sene people talked to like a child . and some act like a child but i agree with your letter . and yes i also belive in big foot i live near a place that yrs ago a hunter seen one chaseing deer. below that spot use to be a lake the state has drained since then but i w=use to go night fishing there and could here monky like animals yelling from one end of lake to other if you people where there. yes i do think there out there but as for crypts i think there just animals that have not been found so if you want to talk to me like a child go ahead you dont pay my bills so long as know what i have sen and heard its only matters to me so good night and happy hunting
ps and no i wont take you out there cuz they need to be left alone
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Wed, Apr 1 2009, 2:04pm 
If you present as a child, I think it's fairly safe to say that you'll be treated like one.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Therst posted Thu, May 7 2009, 7:20am 
I love you guys.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Thu, May 7 2009, 9:43am 
Thanks. I feel warm.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Therst posted Mon, May 11 2009, 10:41pm 
Then you just pee'd yourself again. You need to stop drinking Stu.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Stu posted Thu, May 28 2009, 5:30am 
I had to stop drinking Stu. Way too strong.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: finbar posted Tue, Apr 7 2009, 8:59pm 
my two cents:

as with most forums, two dogmatic extremes emerge that are typically the loudest and most noticable of posters.

regardless of their stance, they will accept all "evidence" that supports their beliefs, and reject any "evidence" that contradicts or questions said beliefs. this happens not because they're looking at things scientifically, but emotionally. they have a vested interest in keeping this "as is" rather than challenging their beliefs. as such, they typically label their side "normal" and "rational", and the other side as "stupid" and "crazy".

most people who try to remain scientific and skeptical tend to be unobtrusive and restrained in their posting and are often overlooked or ignored, or labeled as belonging to one side, depending on what questions are asked.

there will always be believers, both perpetuators and debunkers, to navigate around and overcome in our quest for information, evidence and discovery of the truth. it seems to be one of the burdens we seekers of truth must bare.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Southlander posted Tue, Jun 9 2009, 6:14pm 
I think another thing, which I can't recall seeing mentioned here, is that for the most part, Bigfoot sightings tend to occur in very remote, rugged, nearly inaccessible areas. Add in the idea that they are extremely attuned to their surroundings so they are almost certainly more aware of a human in the area than we are of them. Also add in that they are extremely elusive creatures and merge very well into the areas in which they live.

Now, additionally take into account that lighting conditions are likely to be poor when they are active. Also in dense forested areas sighting through brush any large animal such as a bear or an elk could be reasonably mistaken for something else.

Now, as was said, nature photograph isn't an easy thing to do in the best of times. Add in all the above factors and its not hard for me to accept that even now there aren't any good solid photos Patterson possibly excepted.

I don't know that I believe in all the various bigfoot stories from all over the country. Some areas seem unreasonable to think they have managed to go undetected as long as they have. But I happen to believe that bigfoot probably is out there but mostly in the Pacific Northwest and up into western canada. I have never had the chance to go look, I have never had an encounter. But i think he is there.

I have been wondering lately about lack of evidence in the winter with lots of snow everywhere and got to wondering if perhaps they hibernate similar to bears.
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Just Joan posted Wed, Jun 10 2009, 2:05am 
I hadn't thought about hibernation before. I've been hoping for a better understanding of hibernation abilities in animals. Maybe someday comatose or traction patients won't have atrophied muscles if we can figure out the animals secrets.
If there is a bigfoot, and if it hibernates, and if we can find the marker on the genome that staves off atrophy, that would be sweet!

Yep, we can dream here, this is a site of folks who wonder about wonders!

Joan
Subject: Re: An open letter
From: Gail posted Sat, Aug 8 2009, 9:47am 
I have to agree with this letter.
Science has found something as big as big foot in the Hobbit. Why has there been no discussion or photos of this here? Orang-Pendek has been a long know Crypto "animal". Now that it has been confirmed and they have physical evidence and it has been scientifically named and cartigorized why no mention.
The Hobbit is a big deal. If the Hobbit has live along side of man why not Big Foot.
Species Radiation is the norm in the animal kingdom. To not have evolutional radiation is what would be strange.
Subject: Proof is easy to come by...
From: Andromache posted Thu, Aug 27 2009, 11:22pm 
...At least in this instance,yet,despite honest accounts like PJ's,nobody takes the time to prove or disprove them.There are several ways:
Sitings without photos:
If a battery of tests were taken,and the questions were answered honestly,it would be possible to get to the bottom of solely eyewitness accounts through psychological methods.(PJ,I may not believe you saw Bigfoot,but I do maintain that you saw something out of the ordinary)
Photos:
Folks,there are very easy forensic techniques to go into the meta info of photos,which will tell you if,when,and which flavor of image manipulation system was put to use.If this fails,spectral mapping,depth mapping,and as a last resort,s stroll through the gloomy halls of binaryland will tell you what you need to know.
So why is this so little seen on this site?
PJ,I agree fullheartedly with your open letter,but I think that more rigorous investigation id forthcoming on all counts.Perhaps even the believers on this site have become so jaded and cynical,without realizing it.I think it is time for us all to broaden our minds and get our hands metaphorically dirty with a bit of honest detective work.
-'Mache


Close Window