Joined: 1/6/2006
From: Unknown
Posts: 4
Thanks for the link to the JREF forums, RayG.
God, was that place a breath of fresh air!
No, I'm not kidding.
As a skeptic who wants to believe in Bigfoot, it's nice to see people who aren't stuck in the Echo Chamber mentality of the BFF discussing the PGF.
Seeing the discussion about that piece of footage from another perspective was fascinating. Just as skeptics are attacked on the BFF when they question the PGF, believers there were treated with a fair amount of disdain. Sure, I thought some of it was rude...but honestly a hell of a lot less uncalled for than I've seen on the BFF.
Unfortunately, I have to state that the believers really haven't made an impressive showing on the JREF. Their arguments -- much as they are on the BFF -- are entirely circular. The only difference is that the BFF is self-supporting Echo Chamber; the members of the JREF, on the other hand, weren't about to put up with that nonsense.
Which leads me to an unpleasant conclusion.
I've stated before that I've wanted to believe in Bigfoot for a while. After all, I was a kid who liked reading about UFOs, ghosts, the Loch Ness Monster, and -- even closer to my boyhood home of Northern California -- Bigfoot. Over the years I've come to realize that UFO's are misidentifications of normal events, ghosts are a funciton of the human psyche, and the Loch Ness monster was likely nothing more than wave action observed by people shore. In short, all of my childhood fascinations were being killed one by one.
So, why did I stick with Bigfoot for so long? Partially because a part of me needed that little mystery to be alive. Add in the seemingly new and powerful evidence (the dermal ridges and the Skookum cast) and maybe -- just maybe -- these things could be real.
Except, of course, for that ridiculous PGF. Common sense told me when I was 12 that it was a man in a suit and nothing in my experience since has convinced me otherwise.
Ironically enough, it was the PGF that proved to be the final nail in bigfoot's coffin for me. The manner in which I've seen the PGF defended on the BFF -- and yes, I'm talking about the long-winded, circular-logic postings, and the endless photoshoping of an already digitally-manipulated image -- pushed me over the edge. It's not only made me less impressed with the film itself, but only reinforced the distasteful conclusion that there simply isn't an animal out there to be photographed.
Let's face it: The "dermal ridges" now look to be casting artifacts, the Skookum Cast really is more likely to have been made by an existing mammal (Elk), and the sightings are merely annecdotal. Annecdotes, of course, are not evidence. So where does that leave me? And since I never even included the PGF as part of why I was interested in this animal in the first place that leaves me scratching my head and saying "Well, crap. I guess I'm gonna have to consider the idea that this thing just doesn't exist."
Do I like reaching this conclusion? Hell, no! I want Bigfoot to be real. But wanting something doesn't make it so.
It won't take much to convince me otherwise. Seriously. All I'd like is a decent, clear photograph of one of those animals. Better still, a bone, or a jaw, or a foot would be nice. I just want something that the establishment can look at and say "Holy crap! Would you look at that!" But until then I think I'm gonna have to write off Bigfoot as a modern extension of the Green Man myth and move on.
Thanks, everyone.
Avindair
This is the kind of skepticism we are dealing with when it comes to Bigfoot and in particular, this film. This guy seems to not understand that we would champion the idea that the film was a hoax if it was a hoax. A good majority of us, however, believe the film is real and shows a real creature. Avindair is being a bit rude and condescending to all of us in the Bigfoot field, and he doesn't really help our cause. He can be skeptical all he wants, as long as he's not overtly rude like he is being here. I don't mind skeptics, but I do mind rude skeptics. Avindair, use a little more objectivity next time, if you please.
No comments:
Post a Comment