Guest Biggie Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 What I want to know is how many people are being lied to right now by an unfaithful lover who is trysting with bigfoot? Could be. You know they say about studs with big feet.... In addition to what Sas said let us not forget that people also could lie about sightings to get some money and fame out of appearing on bf tv shows sharing their supposed encounters too. I think there is also a measure of thrill some seek in duping people as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) The proposition that all BF witnesses are either lying or hallucinating is as extraordinary a claim as a physical creature. I wonder if skeptics can admit that. Edited December 14, 2011 by exnihilo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Like this women ? Tim OMG is this the release of the DNA project results????!!!! How can you compare spousal or partner infidelity with lying about a bigfoot sighting? At least with the infidelity part you are getting something pleasant out of it at some point, or there is some kind of reward there. I can't think of anything positive coming out of claiming to see bigfoot. I think the one question missing on these questionnaires that those that choose to investigate forget to ask is if the person enjoyed the experience of seeing bigfoot. I think I already know what the answer to that one would be. Most people lie to get out of trouble not bring grief upon themselves. Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudologia_fantastica The researchers found that the prevalence for any personality disorder in the United States is 9.1 percent. Specific prevalence rates for borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder were estimated at 1.4 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2007/national-survey-tracks-prevalence-of-personality-disorders-in-us-population.shtml I have done the math; toss in alcoholism, and those subject to hallucinations and multiply those percentages by 300 million and you have a huge population from which to draw the "bigfoot" reporters. Not even including us 300 million liars and nearsighted folks and hysterics and misperceivers. lol. Then, as far as the believers who have not reported an encounter but take the word of others, you have a certain population size who will believe almost any claim. I don't know how big that population is but I could give examples eg many people don't believe that the earth is getting warmer. The proposition that all BF witnesses are either lying or hallucinating is as extraordinary a claim as a physical creature. I wonder if skeptics can admit that. no one makes that claim. Straw man. Many if not most reports are simply mistaken identity. I don't regard hallucinations as a high probability. People who have halucinations are the only ones who would know, and they usually do know if they did. I don't think people who know they had a hallucination would report what their mind saw as a physical reality. They tend to seek medical advice instead. Evidence for hallucinations are purely anecdotal, and there is no way to prove whether they did or didn't if that was their claim. ..... SY, come on.... Having had considerable experience with hallucinators, I can with confidence say you are wrong. On all of this. Talk to a shrink. Read about hallucinations. Start with wikipedia. Plz. Edited December 14, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Fair enough. Amended: The proposition that all BF witnesses are either lying, hallucinating, or mistaken is as extraordinary a claim as a physical creature. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I would disagree, we have evidence of people lying, hallucinating and mis-identifying things. We have no hard evidence of a Bigfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I don't regard hallucinations as a high probability. People who have halucinations are the only ones who would know, and they usually do know if they did. I don't think people who know they had a hallucination would report what their mind saw as a physical reality. They tend to seek medical advice instead. Evidence for hallucinations are purely anecdotal, and there is no way to prove whether they did or didn't if that was their claim. If they claim to have seen a physical entity then evidence and proof can be found to confirm it. One has an avenue for investigation and the other is a dead end. Only assumptions can be made for the probability of a halucination, and if one wants to dismiss the report based on assumption they could do that for all of them, dispatch with any investigation and never resolve the issue. People who have hallucinations do not necessarily know they are having them. I believed my hallucinations were psychic experiences and would not believe they were "fake." Many people having hallucinations believe them to be real. If someone were to hallucinate a large manlike shape that disappeared into the brush then they have no reason to think it was a hallucination. Especially if they don't contend with the issue much. Bigfoot are often regarded as excellent at vanishing. One might look for footprints but not find them. This doesn't mean there was no bigfoot as many proponents would say and would not say much about it being false either. Many people would rather be part of the excitement and might not look as closely at what they thought they saw. How can you compare spousal or partner infidelity with lying about a bigfoot sighting? At least with the infidelity part you are getting something pleasant out of it at some point, or there is some kind of reward there. I can't think of anything positive coming out of claiming to see bigfoot. I think the one question missing on these questionnaires that those that choose to investigate forget to ask is if the person enjoyed the experience of seeing bigfoot. I think I already know what the answer to that one would be. Most people lie to get out of trouble not bring grief upon themselves. Here, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudologia_fantastica The researchers found that the prevalence for any personality disorder in the United States is 9.1 percent. Specific prevalence rates for borderline personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder were estimated at 1.4 percent and 0.6 percent, respectively. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2007/national-survey-tracks-prevalence-of-personality-disorders-in-us-population.shtml While I was having my hallucintations I managed to keep a tight lid on them as far as other people were concerned. Many people do not have this discipline. Many people are compelled to talk about things that bother them. Believe I know all too many of these people and they're not all seeing things. Whether they're compelled to talk about UFOs, herbalism, spitituality or the housing market. Many of the hallucinations I've had were traumatic. I struggled with keeping them to myself. I knew I'd be ridiculed and I managed to do it but too many just can't do that. You don't have to enjoy the experience to let it rattle you and make you spill the beans. I am not saying there is nothing to this bigfoot phenomenon but that there is greater potential for error than most want to admit. I've read some incredible reports that have me wondering about the witnesses' sanity. We all have to choose which stories we're going to accept. From my experience many of these stories can be easily chalked up to hallucination. As for most people lying to get out of trouble that's not really true. People lie for many reasons. To get ahead, for status, to soothe hurt feelings etc. Some of these lies may seem true to some listeners because they can't fathom why anyone would lie about it in the first place. A good lier will seem totally honest and sincere. A good actor or imaginer can elicit tears and a shaky voice fairly easily. For some people it's just fun. The proposition that all BF witnesses are either lying or hallucinating is as extraordinary a claim as a physical creature. I wonder if skeptics can admit that. I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) I would disagree, we have evidence of people lying, hallucinating and mis-identifying things. We have no hard evidence of a Bigfoot There are also examples of other hominin species in the paleontological record, and examples of discovered cryptids that were assumed to be either extinct or completely mythological. The point is that a model of the BF phenomenon that depends upon lies, hallucinations, and misidentifications for every eyewitness account is as novel an explanation for a cryptid phenomenon as a physical creature. Indeed, while cryptids have been found to be real creatures, I've never heard of a phenomenon with the scope and depth of BF that was later shown to be wholly fictitious, delusional, and based on error. Edited December 14, 2011 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I also find much of the sighting and footprint evidence compelling. Not enough for me to buy into the existence of Bigfoot 100%, but enough to keep me interested. However, as stated before the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Just because a lot of people tell you something doesn't make it so. One person hears a guy up the ridge saw a Bigfoot. Two weeks later he's in the woods near there and it's dark and some large thing looms nearby and roars at him. Instead of thinking "holy crap a bear is gonna eat me" he thinks " ahhh!!!! it's the Bigfoot wilbur saw!" and he makes a report to that effect. Wash,rinse, repeat.... I don't think lying is the primary source of reports. I think it's misidentification and fleeting glances turned into Bigfoot's due to a desire to see Bigfoot. I'm not going to state that ALL sightings are false, I just have no idea. I don't know if Bigfoot is real or not. I would suspect if he was real we'd have a body by now, but that doesn't eliminate Bigfoot from the realm of possibility. So I just sit here and wait, and hope somebody finally presents some real evidence and not more fuzzy videos and photoshopped pics..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 StankApe, I'm with you. In fact I suspect that we feel similarly about the phenomenon. The closer I approach the idea of a physical creature, the more weird little problems begin popping up. There is a psychic aspect to it I believe, but I don't mean psychic in the sense of a completely fabricated hallucination. I guess I don't really know what I mean, except that the phenomenon transcends the subjective experience of a single psyche. Unless you insist upon black and white answers, and are willing to twist the facts to get there, this phenomenon carries more cognitive dissonance with it than any other I've experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted December 14, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 14, 2011 People who have hallucinations do not necessarily know they are having them. I believed my hallucinations were psychic experiences and would not believe they were "fake." Many people having hallucinations believe them to be real. If someone were to hallucinate a large manlike shape that disappeared into the brush then they have no reason to think it was a hallucination. Especially if they don't contend with the issue much. Bigfoot are often regarded as excellent at vanishing. One might look for footprints but not find them. This doesn't mean there was no bigfoot as many proponents would say and would not say much about it being false either. Many people would rather be part of the excitement and might not look as closely at what they thought they saw. How are you hallucinating and lying at the same time when you find tracks that you are not.I do not get this part of the equation of it.Here you see some thing you go back and you find the tracks of something huge that you know is not human like because of the distance and just the size.Plus you find these tracks in a area where you know that no one should be in, cause you tell no one of your where abouts.How can that be?You have things thrown at you but not directed at you but to the side of you.There is no wind and there is no reason of where it could have came from.Is that just you imagination just taking off with you.No thats real cause you can feel it,especially when you see those tree formations and how they are formed and weaved.There is just no way that the wind could have done that ,it took hands to do it.Even those weird tree breaks that are high where you cannot explain how it was done and you find tracks that explain. Sure there are people that hoax and yes there are going to lie but in the end the truth will always come clear.If some one lies it will come out in time and if it is a hoax it will be proven a hoax.But the truth will always be the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) 'parnassus' wrote: "I have done the math; toss in alcoholism..." Alcoholism? Really? I'm not an alcoholic but I know a bit (actually way too much) about booze. I don't think heavy drinkers hallucinate to the extent of seeing giant hairy men. It's just not in the nature of the drug. I've quite often had way too much but have never hallucinated, let alone seen Patty - is that because I don't live on a continent where stories of giant apes abound? OK - pink elephants perhaps - pass the jug... Edited December 14, 2011 by tuckybuzzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 There are also examples . . . of discovered cryptids that were assumed to be either extinct or completely mythological. Please define "cryptid." Then please provide some examples of these cryptids that were subsequently discovered. (Note, if you suggest Coelocanth, gorilla, or okapi I am well prepared to demonstrate how such creatures are in no way legitimately comparable to "bigfoot.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 The problem with a "desire to see Bigfoot" explanation is that witnesses often do not act like they just had some deep wish fullfilled . They're frightened , confused , embaressed and sometimes traumatized . Even the ones who admit wanting to see one often feel they got more then they bargained for or (sometimes) wish it never happened . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 (edited) Considering that most reports are related to seeing them as you pass on the highway or the bigfoot crossing in front of the vehicle, are you assuming all of those are related to misidentification? I can see that being more likely: late at night, road hypnotism, tired, distracted while driving, or several other things that might attribute to that, including alcoholism. So are we relegating the close encounters to hallucination? How do you arrive at the conclusion if the person has no history of any problems like that and was not under the influence? What are the odds that the witness's brain waves misfired in his occipital lobes that day/night and caused him to see bigfoot? If you believe there is a possibility that bigfoot exists, then please define the characteristics of reports which would seem to indicate a legitimate encounter. I'm guilty of making assumptions on an individual basis here, but I'm not at a point of making generalized blanket statements for the majority. Edited December 14, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 Please define "cryptid." Then please provide some examples of these cryptids that were subsequently discovered. (Note, if you suggest Coelocanth, gorilla, or okapi I am well prepared to demonstrate how such creatures are in no way legitimately comparable to "bigfoot.") Do it without relying on the argument from incredulity and I'll be suitably impressed. "Cryptid" can be defined in a number of ways. To keep it straightforward I will offer the following definition: Cryptid: a reported creature that has not been described by science, whose existence seems so improbable to the scientific community that there is no consensus that the matter is worthy of study I am willing to stipulate the examples you so generously provided, with the addition of the giant squid, and look forward to your repartee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts