Is this rock clacking or a known forest critter?

[night912]

6 hours ago, FelixTheCat said:

Thanks for you opinion. but absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

Actually, that's a misconception that a lot of people make. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence should be there. An example of this is medical tests. If someone thinks that they have a disease or infection, then there should be evidence of it. But if the test results shows that there's no signs of the disease or infection, then they don't have the disease or infection. 

 

 

[FelixTheCat]

8 hours ago, 7.62 said:

Actually you're using confirmation bias  for the things you find . I won't call it evidence .

Has anyone ever seen Bigfoot building a structure ? No but  look at your posts ....Has to be a bigfoot in your other posts of the stick structures you found. N

 

 

...That's confirmation bias   

The structures that you have  been told that kids and people build them ...a lot in the woods . Hell I passed one today while hiking with the dog in the woods. There's tons of people who will go out and practice bushcraft . When ever someone points something out you dismiss it and fall back to I know it's the forest people doing this.

 

You are not doing this subject  any good by always thinking everything is a bigfoot or what you like to call forest people  but you can't see that .

I posted video and photos of stick structures that I found.  I never said that is was the forest people.

[Trogluddite]

15 hours ago, CryptidTalk said:

I agree with this POV. I certainly believe Bigfoot is real, but is incredibly rare. I would say 90%+ of sightings are deliberate hoaxes or misidentifications. Most sounds in the woods can be explained by something else. And should be approached skeptically and assumed to be something else unless all other potential answers are eliminated. 

Surprisingly, the numbers are probably better than that.  I have a database of over 1200 encounters in the northeast US and eastern Canada that comes from encounters reported to newspapers and research groups (BFRO, Gulf Coast Bigfoot, reports here) and numerous other sources.  I wring as many details out of each report as I can and grade them.  I am a harsh grader as most of my 37-year career involved detecting fraud in one way or the other. 

 

Right now I have 679 of these reports graded out. 

   - Only 75 (11%) are clearly fraud, fabrication, or miss-identifications (whether admitted, outed by internet sleuths, or otherwise)

   - The vast majority of reports (400/almost 60%) are simply insufficient to establish that an encounter occurred based on factors that are well established for determining whether an individual is credible and has met their burden of persuasion (i.e., you don't believe that the person is lying about the claimed events, but even accepting their testimony as true, it doesn't establish what they are claiming). 

   - A quarter of these reports (171/25%) are sufficiently detailed (and in some cases corroborated by contemporaneous and credible evidence) that a reasonable person could conclude that an encounter with Bigfoot occurred.  However, the reasonable person standard is low - a different reasonable person could conclude that an encounter with Bigfoot did not occur.

   - Darn.  That adds up to 95%, pretty much what you said.  I am only comfortable in stating that in 33 (5%) of the 679 reported encounters I've looked at is it more likely than not that a Bigfoot was encountered.  Note that "more likely than not" is only 50.0001%, not beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Didn't see that coming.  Next time I'll run the numbers first.  Although, most cases that I put in the "reasonable to believe" category would be "more likely than not" for a lot of people.

 

 

13 hours ago, FelixTheCat said:

You claim bigfoot lives in clans, have you ever seen a clan?  Has anyone on this site ever seen a clan?  Pure conjecture.

 

Actually, in at least three reported and documented encounters in the northeast US and eastern Canada, groups of 3-4 Bigfoot were seen by witnesses and the description is always "1 really big, 1 large but not as big, and 1 or more juveniles or essentially toddlers."  I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar reports from western Canada and the Pacific northwest.

[CryptidTalk]

1 hour ago, Trogluddite said:

Surprisingly, the numbers are probably better than that.  I have a database of over 1200 encounters in the northeast US and eastern Canada that comes from encounters reported to newspapers and research groups (BFRO, Gulf Coast Bigfoot, reports here) and numerous other sources.  I wring as many details out of each report as I can and grade them.  I am a harsh grader as most of my 37-year career involved detecting fraud in one way or the other. 

 

Right now I have 679 of these reports graded out. 

   - Only 75 (11%) are clearly fraud, fabrication, or miss-identifications (whether admitted, outed by internet sleuths, or otherwise)

   - The vast majority of reports (400/almost 60%) are simply insufficient to establish that an encounter occurred based on factors that are well established for determining whether an individual is credible and has met their burden of persuasion (i.e., you don't believe that the person is lying about the claimed events, but even accepting their testimony as true, it doesn't establish what they are claiming). 

   - A quarter of these reports (171/25%) are sufficiently detailed (and in some cases corroborated by contemporaneous and credible evidence) that a reasonable person could conclude that an encounter with Bigfoot occurred.  However, the reasonable person standard is low - a different reasonable person could conclude that an encounter with Bigfoot did not occur.

   - Darn.  That adds up to 95%, pretty much what you said.  I am only comfortable in stating that in 33 (5%) of the 679 reported encounters I've looked at is it more likely than not that a Bigfoot was encountered.  Note that "more likely than not" is only 50.0001%, not beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Didn't see that coming.  Next time I'll run the numbers first.  Although, most cases that I put in the "reasonable to believe" category would be "more likely than not" for a lot of people.

I appreciate your detail in the numbers! I know how time consuming it is. I’m in the beginning concept development for a book and it is a lot of research and number crunching. Thanks for the work you do! 

[Trogluddite]

6 hours ago, FelixTheCat said:

I posted video and photos of stick structures that I found.  I never said that is was the forest people.

From your own posts. 

 

In your Teepee structures post, you say in the first post that they are "created for another purpose ... [p]erhaps as a simple way of showing how many of their kind [the forest people] are in a particular location.  You later stated that "the forest people" do not place these structures in there more secret living space, but use them at the boundaries of their living space.  From roughly 0:45 to 1:00 minute of that video (discussing the 2013 teepee), you clearly stated your belief that the forest people were individually stacking sticks to provide a headcount of Bigfoot in a given area.

 

In your Hilltop structure thread, you stated that the hilltop structure, "[l]ike the Teepee structure is a sign of where they [the forest people] live...." 

 

You labelled your next thread as a fact, stating that "you captured the voices of the forest people knocking over a tree" without qualification. 

[FelixTheCat]

8 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

Actually, in at least three reported and documented encounters in the northeast US and eastern Canada, groups of 3-4 Bigfoot were seen by witnesses and the description is always "1 really big, 1 large but not as big, and 1 or more juveniles or essentially toddlers."  I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar reports from western Canada and the Pacific northwest.

Is that a clan or just a family?  To me a clan is multiple families.

[FelixTheCat]

21 hours ago, night912 said:

Actually, that's a misconception that a lot of people make. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence should be there. An example of this is medical tests. If someone thinks that they have a disease or infection, then there should be evidence of it. But if the test results shows that there's no signs of the disease or infection, then they don't have the disease or infection. 

 

 

That's not a misconception,  If there's a footprint in a 10,000 acre forest, and I don't see it, that does mean that the footprint does not exist.