Leaderboard

. Looks like there is some disagreement as to what "testable" means in the context of the sighting reports. Let me just offer this comparison: If I want to prove that you saw a specific thing, at a specific time, in a specific place, when all I have is your description of it? You are right, such is not likely to be testable in a practical sense, when you are talking about a wild animal. I could stand in that same spot, at the same time each day from now to doomsday and still run the risk of it never happening again, ever. It might, but it also might require an effort of such duration so as to make it quite unlikely that me or anyone else could mount it. Lightning does indeed strike multiple times at the same location(and it also leaves hard evidence when it does). Even so, you're not likely to be standing there waiting for it to happen again, when it does recur. In this sense, I should add, it doesn't really matter if you know the identity of the witness, with any specificity. Nothing you can learn about the witness really changes your ability to confirm the sighting by witnessing a repetition of it. The sighting data is testable in a much greater sense, and I think it is this point that opponents get in the weeds about. Ignore the first definition, and think of it this way: Any widely reported phenomena, if it occurs over a long enough period (and BF reports do) show indicators of credibility that do emerge. The more these data points repeat themselves, the greater the indicators of credibility. With wildlife observations too, behaviors that confirm parallels between known animals, and crypto-species, the greater the probability of truthfulness credibility. Yes, a small number of people in collusion (knowingly or unknowingly) can create common narratives. Experience has shown investigators of all kinds of phenomena that this degree of consistency is likely not possible for pure fabrications across such large spans of time and distance, or across such disparate categories of race, age, ethnicity, occupation and experience. To the extent these data points ARE hoaxed, the results are stilted, rote, contrived and without other supporting indicators of credibility. In this very real and scientific sense, sighting reports are testable. To say such is beyond human ability underestimates both human acumen and history, profoundly.

Allow me to answer you. You asked me why I had no interest in gaining the frame of reference that your experiences afford you. I point out your lack of evidence for these experiences as reasons why I do not feel compelled to go bigfoot hunting in OK. I see zero evidence to suggest there are any Wood Apes in existence, much less that area.