Leaderboard

DWA - In court eyewitness testimony is entered into evidence but the other side gets to examine the eyewitness, their motives, background, state of mind etc. We aren't in court and you aren't seeing any examination of anonymous anecdotal reports - to say otherwise is not being truthful. At best you are describing heresay which isn't normally entered into evidence but still wouldn't apply as WE STILL AREN'T IN COURT. Do you believe eyewitness accounts of fairies, elves, dogmen, chupacabras and sassy are equally truthful? Would you be comfortable with being kicked off the forum due to an anonymous report by someone stating they saw you hoaxing sassy tracks? Would you appeal a suspension of your child from school due to a 3 year old anonymous report? Can you honestly say you would be comfortable with having a loved tried for murder on the basis of anonymous reports vetted by someone on the phone whose criteria was "the witness sounded truthful"?

You impute thought processes to me in which I do not engage. I consider other reports data and evaluate them accordingly. My only bias is the reverse of the denialist's bias. Since I know them to exist, I'm past the question about whether or not the subject of the report can exist to begin with. Shed of that "burden" I then evaluate the report for consistency, degree of confidence, and value. None of the reports I read have any value to me with regard to proving bigfoot's existence. That's no longer a question for me. As a matter of fact, I generally don't go out of my way to read reports at all any more, because the vast majority only say I saw or heard a bigfoot here at this particular time and place. That is meaningful geographic data, and if the bigfoot happens to have some sort of distinctive coloring, that can add value with regard to possibly tracking that individual, but the statement "I saw a bigfoot" is a big "So what" to me because it provides little or nothing in the way of new information for me, little or no value, no matter how reliable it is. I will tune into a report if it engenders discussion due to ancillary data that may provide additional insight into their behavior, intelligence, how they interact, etc. This is more meaningful to me and has greater value. And if a report includes Fortean aspects, I assign a low rating to it with regard to consistency, degree of confidence, and value. When a bigfoot is caught, you will marvel. If that bigfoot, after being caught, demonstrates the ability to mindspeak, I will marvel.

Not missing in action yet! Just busy time of year; cleaning the place up, gardening and entertaining out of state folks. I see light at the end of the tunnel; and plan on hitting both the river bottoms and the mountain in just a few days. Just able to get on the computer late at night. Regards to you and Gotta Know.

My subjective bias? Opens me up to other stuff? You are mistaken. With regard to the other stuff, I maintain objective skepticism as I've described above. I've never seen any of that other stuff. If you take the time to review my postings on bigfoot, you will find that there are plenty of reported factors regarding bigfoot on which I remain objectively skeptical as well. I was originally skeptical regarding their use of low frequency sound. It was only after I saw persistent reports regarding this capability and statements from those I had come to respect regarding it that I took up analysis as an engineer to determine if such capability was both possible and feasible. I determined that it is both possible and feasible and does explain some things, but I am not ready to conclusively say that it is something they can do. I am only prepared to say that it is within the realm of possibility. Now, if you walked through a Coca Cola bottling plant and were handed a Coke in a fluorescent blue can, then asked to return it without taking a picture of it there would be those who would laugh at you when you stated that such a thing existed. And in any future debate regarding its existence someone could accuse you of subjective bias regarding the matter. The fact that I have encountered bigfoot did not create what I would call a subjective bias. As an engineer, it created what I would professionally call a boundary condition. Since I have had an unmistakeable encounter, I know that the number of bigfoot in existence cannot be zero. But I can see how you would consider this subjective given that I saw it and you didn't. Still, your rejection of the information I offer is, in itself, subjective based on your own personal beliefs. You may feel most comfortable believing that I was mistaken, but you have to acknowledge that, from your own subjective perspective, you could be mistaken that I was mistaken.

Given that there are those who publicly deride bigfoot witnesses, the prevalence of anonymous reports is understandable. This is an example of how skeptics and denialists actually skew the quality of reports. In essence, they are part of the problem. That said, an anonymous report will have a lower degree of confidence than the exact same report with information regarding the witness.

In the western world, there are thousands of reports of "little people" from Ireland, yet no remains. Should science place great store in tales of leprechauns? Maybe our resident report reader could read hundreds or thousands of those reports and declare the creature scientifically proven, too.

dmaker...times (that is, duration) of the sightings in his database. As his analysis showed him, the duration of the sightings by male witnesses exceeded those of females, which was contrary to his original hypothesis. I just throw that out as only one of many interesting tidbits you can tease of out of this information that illustrates some degree of consistency you might not expect to find if these were random, fabricated or delusional artifacts of the witnesses. Dare I say it as well: What he was doing was trying to apply scientific methods to this information, one of the ways anecdotal evidence can be tested, in a limited fashion. Wouldn't you think such a thing would have value, if not to just prove your own points on its value?

If there is one meme I see repeated here that I would like to escort to the trunk of a car, blindfold, gag and drive to the Meadowlands and summarily dispatch it is this: "Evidence I don't find compelling I don't consider proof, which means it is not evidence", and also its demon-twin, "If you can't test it, it isn't evidence." Could we once and forever quit confusing this already confusing subject with expressions like these, pretty please? I get that you don't consider a lot of things to be "proof" to you, and you might be shocked to know many proponents don't either, BUT... whether you find it persuasive or not, it is evidence. Please stop saying it is not. Something you can point to, describe, question somebody about, investigate, map, photograph or post about on an internet forum to help explain your opinion IS evidence (and not necessarily proof, yeah, we get it).

I find BF to be much more interesting as a phenomenon once you realize that its actually a real creature. Beyond that I don't care to argue all that much as the skeptics often bring up some pretty tired arguments, none of which are true, about something with which they've had zero experience. OTOH I am very willing to discuss it and answer questions. It seems to me a lot of people who have had real experiences are probably similar. I'm pretty sure some would concede that misidentification could be an issue; others will not based entirely on the nature of their encounter. The forum is a nice venue, as we don't have to give out our names and phone numbers. That is indeed an issue- it was pretty obvious after my encounter that it was not going to be a good idea to broadcast the fact that it had happened. I have good friends that I simply won't talk about this issue, others where I will, all having to do with how I perceive their world view and their ability to handle something like this; also whether it will damage my relationship with them. If I had not had the experience things would be easier! On this matter its simply a fact that your world view will get shaken up if you ever have a real encounter; if that never happens you are probably better off.

Hello DWA, I think it's time to stop the antagonistic dialogue and just talk. Of course there are names. You know it and I know it and so don't a lot of other people. This day and age one has to consider identity theft and all kinds of other dangerous internet and phone scams to deal with. As far as ALL their names? Don't be ridiculous. Though most of what you've said in this thread IS ridiculous in that you always take the debate to the extreme edges of what is sensible. You want names PM me- but there will be a catch . I've got lots, along with addresses, phone numbers, emails, you name it. I'm saying this because I'm sooo tired of your empty challenges that carry about as much weight to me as to be hilariously irrelevant. I've already said your credibility with me is pretty much shot but here you are just rolling along trying to be clever. Yep. ridiculous.

Thank you for your service! I would assume the moisture in nam would destroy a paper shotgun cartridge of the day?