What Evidence Convinces You?

[Guest toejam]

Slabdog, good point. That print you circled seems like it could be deer. They'll leave the front leg marks when they land. This is exactly what I look for when looking at possible prints in the snow.

[Guest gershake]

Well that sounds like a likely explanation for that particular photo, and I certainly have no other explanation for it. However, do deer really jump in such a way to leave behind tracks as shown in photos 2 and 3? (Not a rhetorical question, genuinely curious.) Photos 2 and 3 seem very convincing to me, especially if the fence is as high as is claimed.

[Guest]

Here is what makes me pay attention to the Bigfoot world. I heard a number the other day,40,000+ reports. I have no idea how many footprints have been found, but many of them have been in very remote area's, unlikely to be a hoax,found by people with experience in animal tracks. Both these events have been occurring for a long time. Unknown primate hairs have been found. That is a fact,something left them there. There is a lot of interesting audio out there, and many of the devoted audio people, have been accumulating a lot of good results for a long time. There is a lot of interesting, albeit, non definitive video out there.

That is all evidence, its not definitive evidence,but it is evidence.

[southernyahoo]

What's not funny is how many innocent people may have been executed or have served lengthy prison terms based upon incorrect eyewitness evidence/testimony.

From the link: --Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.--

RayG

Ray, I regard the ability to identify the physical form of an animal or being to be on a different reliability scale than when a person is identifying another person whom they may not know and potentially only saw once.

If a study were done with witnesses on their ability to identify various known animals and humans plus distinguish this from hypothetical representations of BF, then I might accept an argument that BF sightings were so unreliable.

Parns' recently posted image of Patterson and a BF side by side would be an example, and he also asks, how a person could mistake a bigfoot for a person.

Edit to add link http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/page__pid__143430__st__2370#entry143430

Edited February 15, 2012 by southernyahoo

[georgerm]

Here is what makes me pay attention to the Bigfoot world. I heard a number the other day,40,000+ reports. I have no idea how many footprints have been found, but many of them have been in very remote area's, unlikely to be a hoax,found by people with experience in animal tracks. Both these events have been occurring for a long time. Unknown primate hairs have been found. That is a fact,something left them there. There is a lot of interesting audio out there, and many of the devoted audio people, have been accumulating a lot of good results for a long time. There is a lot of interesting, albeit, non definitive video out there.

That is all evidence, its not definitive evidence,but it is evidence.

Is there a particular incident that gets your interest?

[Guest]

I think the first example I always seem to head for, when someone wants an example I find convincing is this one.

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/SierraSounds/911.asp#911

To me,this guy sounds like he wants someone out there, and his fear sounds real. His narrative is very telling I think, when we are considering hunters that have them in their sites,but don't take the shot. This poor fellow is not sure what he is seeing.

[BobbyO]

The one's of you who do know, congrats. But we as a whole, don't know.

Very true & thanks for the congrats..

I hope you do KNOW one day, honestly.

I'd rather know than not.

I think the first example I always seem to head for, when someone wants an example I find convincing is this one.

http://www.bfro.net/...nds/911.asp#911

To me,this guy sounds like he wants someone out there, and his fear sounds real. His narrative is very telling I think, when we are considering hunters that have them in their sites,but don't take the shot. This poor fellow is not sure what he is seeing.

I think he knows exactly what he's seeing but like so many others, he just doesn't want to say it for a million reasons, one being that the person on the other end of the phone won't just put it down on him when he really needs them not to.

[Guest]

@ KingsCanyon

Reread my post, I called the use of the argument and the argument itself silly/laughable, not Jiggy. But thanks for practicing to be a mod. Keep practicing, because no actual moderator had a problem with my post.

Sooo many reports. If only one report is correct, they exist. That convinces me.

Well you merely have a lower standard of convincing than I. 'Nothing wrong with that.

[JDL]

From my viewpoint it is not the existence of bigfoot that is on trial. It is the non-existence of bigfoot that is on trial.

There are thousands of reports. Modern forensic analysis of the PGF presented by National Geographic, among others, concludes that the subject in the film is non-human (I hate to disappoint the fans of the seven or so people who claim to have been the guy in the suit). Footprint evidence is compelling and voluminous. There have been hair and scat samples over the years that have conclusively tested to be from an unknown primate.

Straight line logic dictates that the most likely conclusion is that there are, in fact, bigfoot.

But there are those who continuously craft less likely explanations to dismiss the evidence. The mounds of consistent evidence are troubling, so they point to a single example of each type and provide alternative theories to explain it away. Then they generalize their objections regarding the reliability of one report, for example, to dismiss the thousands of others. Impeach one footprint of dubious quality, and you can impeach all of those of high quality. If the hair and scat samples from an unknown primate aren't easily dismissed, or if the totality of consistent evidence is too daunting, simply say that it is still not enough, gotta have a body, and walk away.

These aren't the tactics of scientists. These are the tactics of lawyers. Stop at nothing to maintain reasonable doubt. At this point they're simply fighting a delaying action.

WTB1, I'll tell you that I've seen something you do not believe exists, under circumstances that would convince even yourself. Less than thirty feet away, broad daylight, no intervening obstacles, two other witnesses with me, one within arm's reach of the bigfoot. We engaged in a staring match for a full 45 seconds. The only reason two of us didn't run was because it could have simply reached out and grabbed David, who was twelve and frozen in shock. We weren't going to run away and simply let it kill him, if that was its intent. So we had a standoff, for 45 seconds, poised and waiting, all the while noting the stature (over eight feet tall), the uniform black hair on its body, the incredible muscle definition that was apparent even under the hair, the details of its face, the proprtional length of its arms, the shape of its shoulders, trapezius, neck and head.

We knew it coud kill us at will.

And then it turned and walked away.

Now someone can respond by trying to convince me that I did not encounter something that they do not believe exists. But it comes down to the fact that they simply do not believe in something that hasn't been close enough to them to kill them.

[Guest]

For me personally the reports that truely stand out are the ones reported by Fish and Game officers and police officers. Fish and Game because these guys spend so much time in the wild and observe animals on a daily basis and know the difference between a bear or human and bigfoot, more so than the average outdoors man, And police officers just because of thefact that they have absolutely nothing to gain by reporting a sighting and everthing to loose yet many come forward because of the fact that they want to support other people who have seen these things.

[Guest]

WTB1, I'll tell you that I've seen something you do not believe exists, under circumstances that would convince even yourself. . .

That's an awesome story JDL, but do you understand how that experience you had is not something that a scientist can use to publish a description of a new species?

The evidence I need to see to be convinced is diagnostic and physical. That is, and always has been, the standard for description of a new species. If you actually experienced the harrowing encounter you relate then it's inevitable for unambiguous physical evidence to be produced at some point. I prefer to wait for that rather than decide that such creatures exist based on information with potential alternative explanations.

edited to add: Who are these 7 people who've claimed to be in the Patty suit? I just know of the one. If you can provide a link or something without a big PGF derail, I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

. . . And police officers . . . have absolutely nothing to gain by reporting a sighting and everthing to loose . . .

I would think that the police officer who put a bigfoot costume in a freezer and tried to pass it off as genuine would put a final fork in the notion that professionals are immune from the same shortcomings as anyone else.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Saskeptic

[Guest]

So far, there has been no convincing evidence. NONE. Spooky sounds, footprint trophies, elk wallows and anectdotal evidence. A specimen, dead or alive is needed. I don't need convincing anyway. I need proof.

[indiefoot]

Much of the back and forth on these forums stems from the interchangeable use of evidence and proof, IMO. They are not the same.

Edit to add one persons take,

Evidence points to the truth, proof points to agreement.

Edited February 16, 2012 by indiefoot

[BobbyO]

You are absolutely killing me with that avatar JC, seriously...

[Guest]

Scenario:

Saskeptic goes afield and finds a great-looking bigfoot print. It's way off the beaten path where no one knew he'd be, the print shows signs of having been made by a flexible foot, etc. He casts it, takes it back to the lab and considers it the best bigfoot evidence he's ever seen.

Three years later (after he earns his degree), Saskeptic's graduate student reveals that the cast his mentor made was from an impression the student had made. The footprint did not come from a bigfoot, it was intentionally put there by a hoaxer.

Clearly, the cast is not bigfoot evidence, right?

Was it bigfoot evidence for the 3-year period between when it was cast and when the hoax was revealed?

If the hoax had never been revealed, would the cast be bigfoot evidence?

Edited February 16, 2012 by Saskeptic