Some of my best friends are sceptics and I have no problem with jousting with them: I do feel a little insulted, however, if they continually repeat the same position as if I had not heard it the first time.
Your sole contribution to these threads, and apparently your only purpose for being here, is to endlessly recycle the claim that there is NO evidence for any man-like apes in any part of the world.You say this because you dismiss all eyewitness accounts as being inferior to your own interpretation of them and all recordings, footprints and other physical traces as being of no value.
It is a point of view, and one which you are welcome to, but I am curious as to why it gives you such a special thrill to keep reposting it as though you imagine that those who disagree with you are plain stupid and can only be addressed in this repetitive manner.
Perhaps you have a Biology degree, or some-such, and therefore imagine that this allows you to pull rank on everybody else.(Despite the fact that Man-like ape research, at this stage, is not a biological issue.) If you had done any serious background research on this topic -I mean outside of the internet (and watching that TV show which I have never seen) you would know that there are well qualified minds, probably better than yours or mine, that disagree with this conclusion of yours: David Attenborough and Jane Goodall. to name but two. These people are by no means yeti-advocates, but they do have the honesty to acknowledge room for new discoveries within their own specialism.
One telling thing about you, and your fellow interchangeable Career-sceptics is that here is no corresponding room for doubt in your own ideological schema. You have already made your mind up. and have pulled the drawbridge up against any incoming new information.Whilst a yeti `believer` can often be heard dismissing apparent evidence, accepting that they got something wrong,and even expressing pangs of scepticism, a Mr Neo-Orangechecker will never forward anything but a flat out scepticism at all times. Nuances, aren't macho enough for you, right?
Interest in the Unknown, contrary to what you seem to think, is not about `belief` but about what-if thinking. In this case: What if there are man-like apes in our midst? This is not a `belief-system` that sustains me (three meals a day and love does that) it's a hypothetical question. Before you go and say something to the effect that this has no room in `science` then think again, and read again. Albert Einstein conceived of one of his theories about the speed of light following a daydream about sunbeams. (Don't ask for a link! It's out there somewhere!)
Perhaps you are just ordinary guys at heart and have wandered on to the wrong forum by accident.I myself dislike cricket, but it would never occur to me to join a cricket forum with the sole aim of telling people about that fact.Perhaps you would also feel less heroic if you realised that Career-Sceptics, in this section of the forum at least, are well in the majority-so you're not even sticking up for the little man, either.
Please, career-Sceptics, do not reply to this post by saying one more time that there is no evidence for man-like apes: I heard you the first time. It would be much better for you to give us some insight into your reasons as to why this is so important to you that you have keep on repeating it to intelligent people who just happen to disagree.
I'd like to thank you, firstly, for your well-written and intelligently composed response. I will try my best to address some of your questions.
i actually came to this forum as a revived believer, if you can believe that. As a younger person I was quite simply OBSESSED with cryptids, paranormal, UFO - all of that and sundry. I read as much as I could get my hands on and over the years although the intensity of my quest for knowledge on the subject waned as I ventured into other pursuits, I remained a believer. On new year's day I watched the Finding Bigfoot marathon and it rekindled my interest in the topic. I came across this website as I was looking for information on the topic.
What happened here is that I suddenly one day saw that all the things I had previously thought of as evidence of all the paranormal things I believed in weren't as solid as I'd previously thought. I won't go into all that stuff, because you apparently have heard enough about what I think is evidence and what isn't.
My purpose here is actually somewhat broader than to voice my skepticism actually. I write some fair to middling poetry over yonder in the Writer's and Artist's hangout, and I also like to play in the fun and games section.
What keeps me coming back to post on these topics is not to belittle others or make other poster's feel insulted as I have done to you apparently. I am a firm believer however that people are completely entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. I like facts to be the same for everyone. I'm like most any human I suppose in that I like things to make sense and have order. And for that order to occur, it seems to me that facts should be provable.
I am not opposed to the idea of many paranormal things existing. I would be totally thrilled if someday someone could actually prove, with evidence that Bigfoot was indeed real, or if hauntings actually occurred. I really would be. It would bring back some of the excitement and magic I felt in my youth with regards to these topics. I think that there are things about our world that we don't know yet. Surely we haven't yet learned everything that there is to know. I accept that. What I won't accept is that this lack of total knowledge should be used as some do - like a blank check- for all manner of extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I don't regard myself as a macho person, and I do truly have an open mind. If someone were to provide proof of all or some of these paranormal occurances then I would welcome it with open arms. You mention tracks, recordings, and eyewitness accounts. Those will all indeed have their place as supporting evidence someday if someone actually brings in a bigfoot. All of those pieces of information will serve to enrich our knowledge of bigfoot if indeed it is ever proven to exist. But without hard evidence that can be studied (like a live or dead bigfoot) those things aren't enough to prove it - for me at least, and for many others.
Your Einstein example is a nice touch, but the logic is flawed. Sure Einstein concieved of one of his theories in a daydream, but then he did what so far hasn't been accomplished in the cryptid community - he proved it!
Thanks again for your post. I hope that we can continue a discourse with at least a grudging respect for each other.