Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
masterbarber

Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots? (2)

106 posts in this topic

Please continue discussion here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Starling, no.

 

When someone "catches something out of the corner of their eye  .  .  ." there is NOT a psychological disposition towards folklore.  In fact, quite the opposite.  One tends to identify something they know, something familiar.

 

There's a built-in reason that we tend to first "go with what we know."

 

In my former misguided activities - we depended a lot on going undetected.  Which meant doing everything possible to blend in and not stand out - including, but not limited to using camoflage.  You see, when a human looks at something - a bright color unlike the background will jump out at you, then movement, then shape.

 

That's why a flagman will wear a bright vest - though he may not be moving - it really jumps out at your at a glance.

 

If you're not brightly colored in the field - and you're not moving and see someone enter the area that may and probably will see you, the very best thing you can do in the immediate term is to change your shape.  Change your shape from a human into something else.  You can usually go unnoticed if you quickly bend at the waist and don't move.  Make sure your head faces them and doesn't show the normal profile.

 

It even works against recon aircraft - where you may be casting a shadow.  They will quickly see a human shaped shadow, but it's confusing if you're bent at the waist.

 

Why?  Because you don't look like something your opponent immediately recognizes.  You really don't look like anything - maybe a stump, maybe a moss covered stump - but you certainly don't meet the anticipated height, width, or shape of a human - and they human eye goes right over you.

 

People who see something tend to immediately identify those things they're very familiar with - see frequently.  Shape is everything - and shape in of itself is an instant type-identifier.  That's why lots of money is spent on 3-D camo - which breaks up the human shape.

 

A car instantly is differentiated from a truck - not by color, not by movement - but by shape.  A bird in a tree is instantly differentiated from a squirrel - by shape.  A dog running across a yard, or through the bushes is instantly differentiated from a cat by shape.

 

That argument is absolutely unscientific, and every military in the world knows that's all BS.

Edited by FarArcher
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've posted no citations, so we can say this is your opinion?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would characterize everything FarArcher posted as axiomatic, bordering on "Duh".  That of course is just my opinion though!  :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FarArcher said:

Starling, no.

 

When someone "catches something out of the corner of their eye  .  .  ." there is NOT a psychological...

10 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

That argument is absolutely unscientific, and every military in the world knows that's all BS.

10 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

Hey Far Archer, your entire counter-argument was wasted because you either wantonly quote mined me or you did not read my post properly. Either way your response is moot.

 

 

The context you should have been basing your answer on was: 'when someone catches something out of the corner of their eye they can't immediately identify.' 

 

Very often someone will see something in their peripheral and when they attempt to zero in on it, they perceive it to be gone or whatever shadow play or lighting effect that caused it (sometimes the movement of the observer will be enough) has changed the visual effect that caught their attention and they're left wondering whether they'd seen what they thought they saw. This isn't something people need to have military experience to know about...it happens to all of us once in a while. 

 

And the circumstances of the sighting can play a big role. As a child I made more excited monster sightings on Loch Ness than you could shake a stick at. But the amount of confirmed sightings were admittedly...precisely zero. That's not to say these aren't moments that can leave a person amazed. But there are plenty of similar 'encounters' reported right here. One person's tree stump sighting comes to mind. Add a little human imagination and, yes, a psychological predisposition to elaborate (both conscious and unconscious) and the truth that this can lead to highly erroneous conclusions is undeniable - if you're not too far gone to admit it.  You might as well try and claim that nobody in a witness box  ever tells an untruth because...well...they made a pinky promise not to, right? People get things massively wrong all the time. No mystery there. But You And I, Far Archer, we can't both be right. On this one point, however, my money is on a very real need for people to take their moments of half perception and make their experiences, and by osmosis, themselves more interesting through them. 

 

This is one of the reasons I think bigfootery must live on the fringes. It must be painted by proponents as a taboo subject, scoffed at by the Ill-informed who fail to share their elevated position of higher knowledge. Look at the amusing grandiosity that DWA cloaks himself in. It will never occur to him that the subject is really discretely ignored and quietly mocked because most of it has presented itself as just a rarefied form of stamp collecting; self-contradictory and, outside psycho-social commentary, it has achieved precisely nothing in the many decades it's been researched. But then intellectual incompetence and delusion tends to lead to just that kind of result.

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, bigfoot skeptics go against everything they would tell you if anything else was the topic.  Logic escapes them at every turn when they're talking about this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really a pretty silly discussion, as far as I'm concerned. The number of witness reports I've ever read that contain words like, "I saw something on the periphery of my vision, and it could only have been a Bigfoot"? Approximately zero. If I saw one, I'd chuck it to the side in a second.  What I do know, and I'm assuming everyone here knows it too, is if you DO spot something out of the corner of your eye that appears unusual, you will stop, turn your head , and if it is still there, you will take a good hard look at it. How's that for an elevated position of higher knowledge? Have I lost anyone? 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well that's another thing the skeptics don't seem to understand:  how easy it is to show the science-focused that one hasn't done the research.  Same here: fishy reports get tossed in an instant.  It's just that there are few to none.  Doesn't mean that one takes any single one for anything. There are many subtleties to the analysis, and there is no way anyone should be taking every word of a witness report for salt.  It is the consistency that reigns *despite all that* that attracts the true scientist.

Edited by DWA
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Starling said:

 

Hey Far Archer, your entire counter-argument was wasted because you either wantonly quote mined me or you did not read my post properly. Either way your response is moot.

 

 

The context you should have been basing your answer on was: 'when someone catches something out of the corner of their eye they can't immediately identify.' 

 

Very often someone will see something in their peripheral and when they attempt to zero in on it, they perceive it to be gone or whatever shadow play or lighting effect that caused it (sometimes the movement of the observer will be enough) has changed the visual effect that caught their attention and they're left wondering whether they'd seen what they thought they saw. This isn't something people need to have military experience to know about...it happens to all of us once in a while. 

 

And the circumstances of the sighting can play a big role. As a child I made more excited monster sightings on Loch Ness than you could shake a stick at. But the amount of confirmed sightings were admittedly...precisely zero. That's not to say these aren't moments that can leave a person amazed. But there are plenty of similar 'encounters' reported right here. One person's tree stump sighting comes to mind. Add a little human imagination and, yes, a psychological predisposition to elaborate (both conscious and unconscious) and the truth that this can lead to highly erroneous conclusions is undeniable - if you're not too far gone to admit it.  You might as well try and claim that nobody in a witness box  ever tells an untruth because...well...they made a pinky promise not to, right? People get things massively wrong all the time. No mystery there. But You And I, Far Archer, we can't both be right. On this one point, however, my money is on a very real need for people to take their moments of half perception and make their experiences, and by osmosis, themselves more interesting through them. 

 

This is one of the reasons I think bigfootery must live on the fringes. It must be painted by proponents as a taboo subject, scoffed at by the Ill-informed who fail to share their elevated position of higher knowledge. Look at the amusing grandiosity that DWA cloaks himself in. It will never occur to him that the subject is really discretely ignored and quietly mocked because most of it has presented itself as just a rarefied form of stamp collecting; self-contradictory and, outside psycho-social commentary, it has achieved precisely nothing in the many decades it's been researched. But then intellectual incompetence and delusion tends to lead to just that kind of result.

 

 

 

I was using your words.  Everyone's seen a flash indication out of the corner of their eyes, but they don't report it as a Gremlin, Bigfoot, or Vampire.  They usually just think, "was I imagining that?"

 

To make an assumption that these sightings - some for moments - some for minutes - are mistaken is just arrogance at its worst.  Now maybe you have a medical condition where most every thing you personally see - is not there - and that's your problem.  Rub some Tussin on it.

 

Most people know what they see, and many can give details.  And do.

 

I don't think I'm too far gone - you see - I never gave these things a moment's thought - they didn't exist.  Until the moment I had a really good introduction - so while your own  imagination or medical condition - whatever your problem is to believe this crap applies to others - goes completely bat**** on a regular basis - the bulk of the population doesn't have that problem.

 

People may get things wrong here and there, but they get most everything they see - right.  There's a reason you're willing to get out on a highway.  There's a trust and an assumption that the drivers coming from the opposite direction - can see sufficient to drive, maintain their position in their own lane, and drive with a reasonable level of competence.

 

Millions of drivers go through their observations successfully every day.

 

On occasion - someone gets distracted, drives while drunk, or falls asleep at the wheel - and those are the exceptions - not the rule - as you suggest.

 

And I agree.  We can't both be right.  You want to take a small percentage of an occurrence and make it the general rule.  Because it just fits your argument better.

 

And reality be damned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DWA said:

Same here: fishy reports get tossed in an instant.  It's just that there are few to none. 

Few to none? That seems fishy to me.

 

How do you decide what gets tossed? And I mean you, personally, since you have set yourself up as the oracle of bigfoot reports. Those that you do "toss", how do you account for the report at all? Mistake? Fabrication? How do all the other reports become exempt from those same influences? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are master observers.  Our daily lives *prove it,* and are the most Occam-friendly argument for the reality of sasquatch one could make.

 

Why is it real?  The most rock-hard, nail-sharp justification in nature:  HUMANS SEE IT...AND DESCRIBE IT.  CONSISTENTLY.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FarArcher said:

 

I don't think I'm too far gone - you see - I never gave these things a moment's thought - they didn't exist.  Until the moment I had a really good introduction

 

When were your encounters?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WSA said:

This is really a pretty silly discussion, as far as I'm concerned.  What I do know, and I'm assuming everyone here knows it too, is if you DO spot something out of the corner of your eye that appears unusual, you will stop, turn your head , and if it is still there, you will take a good hard look at it. How's that for an elevated position of higher knowledge? Have I lost anyone? 

 

 

The problem with your position of 'higher knowledge' here is that all you've done with it is shoot yourself in the foot with it. If you have the opportunity to take a good hard look at it something then logic dictates that, in this world where cameras are utterly ubiquitous, one would think the opportunity to take one paltry unambiguous photo would have presented itself by now. But no, logically your argument Is as impotent as they come.

 

I have a book from the Fifties that attempts to explain away the amount of unambiguous photos of flying saucers by stating that no one has yet captured a picture of a car crash as it happens. Seventy years on and programmes that consist of little else but real life car crashes (the authenticity of which no one can question) are all over the tv. And Bigfoot? Not so much for some reason!

 

2 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 You want to take a small percentage of an occurrence and make it the general rule.  Because it just fits your argument better.

 

And reality be damned.

 

Incorrect. This is just a small part of my argument; the part that wishes to credit some eye witness reports with genuine sincerity as I'm sure they exist. My wider conviction is that everyone else is just playing fantasy role games for  as many reasons as there are stars in the sky. I've never understood why just because an individual is considered a 'credible' witness they're not actually open to a vast spectrum of Walter Mitty-style behaviour. To use your analogy the reason the roads are as safe as they are is because millions of road users go about their driving with due care and attention. But a big part of that is drivers being constantly aware that statistically there is always going  to be some drivers who aren't at any given moment. You would have us believe that not worrying about the exceptions is the rule on the highway when it definitely is not. This is called simple logic and it is not on your side.

1 hour ago, DWA said:

We are master observers.  Our daily lives *prove it,* and are the most Occam-friendly argument for the reality of sasquatch one could make.

 

Why is it real?  The most rock-hard, nail-sharp justification in nature:  HUMANS SEE IT...AND DESCRIBE IT.  CONSISTENTLY.

 

 

If you're such a 'master observer' how come you fell so comprehensively for an April Fool's joke? Human beings and make consistent reports about all sorts of things, not just mythological bogeyman. I could write a long list. Doesn't mean that what they're reporting is biological or physical reality. Social constructs that are passed subconsciously from one person to another are called MEMES these days. What is it about this documented aspect human nature do you find so difficult to understand?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DWA said:

HUMANS SEE IT...AND DESCRIBE IT. 

That is about the weakest reason to think bigfoot is real.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starling, there's actually much better than that out there. It is 50 years old. Really... you can look it up!  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0