Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[WSA]

Here's a pretty detailed sighting report to chew on...

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38873

I'm familiar with this area...the Chief Ladiga/Silver Comet trail runs through the middled of this area, and I've been across it many times. I have no trouble believing a putative animal such as the one described could make a tolerable living there and remain undetected most of the time.

Now, aside from substituting my opinion as to what this was in place of the witness', what else are we left with? Hoaxer? Crazy person?

I'm also very intrigued by number and detail of reports coming out of the river valleys and piedmont of Central GA, and the mountains of N. Georgia. I hike frequently in Rabun Cty, at the headwaters of the Tallulah river, on the TN divide where the AT crosses from GA. to NC. A couple of weeks ago I encountered a local man I had never met on a trail, and, unbidden, he brought up the subject of BF. There are accounts of witnesses (him included) circulating in the valley. He gave me no outward indication he was either a lunatic or liar and the facts of his encounter did not lend themselves to being second-guessed. He was not familiar with the BFRO website, and I referred him to it. He was either the victim of an elaborate hoax, or...

[Guest]

Sorry that doesn't fit the criteria. Read again. Sighted thousands near human-dominated areas across an entire continent.

Argument by disqualifiction. Any evidence you can't trump you dismiss as irrelevant.

No sale.

You've been debunked.

Admit it.

Read here: http://arts.anu.edu....lla Biology.pdf. The animals that may have been by Hano may or may not have been actual gorilla

Do I need to drag out the Daffy Duck "Ho HA HA DODGE!" clip again? More argument from disqualification fail.

and given that Europeans have never fully explored Africa until the 19th century its not surprising that they weren't known.

Again begging the question. Western Science had been told about the gorilla for a long time, and it had a documented history going back millenia by various local populations, but it wasn't "discovered" until someone shot and stuffed one.

Which is the point. Listen to the locals. They know far more about their lands than you Lab Coat Boys do.

Again grasping at straws.

Yes, you are. And I wish you'd stop as we're running short.

[Drew]

You don't need to be a lunatic to think you saw Bigfoot.

You really should read this article. This study was only with people that wouldn't be considered mentally ill. I can only imagine what some of the people who are probably clinical are experiencing with regard to paranormal sightings.

http://www.csicop.or...he_unexplained/

Some key points

We found this result exciting because, for the first time, we had proof of the involvement of specific psychological processes in paranormal beliefs. Very specific hu*man psychological characteristics can be used to predict belief not only in supernatural prospects generally, but also in specific kinds of paranormal “beings.â€

Quote:

A person need not, in any technically accurate sense, be mentally ill to “see†a paranormal “being.†This is a crucial caveat. Our respondents were not in any sense “crazy†or mentally ill. All three of the conditions addressed are those that many people in the normal population experience at subclinical levels. These were normal people, yet their proclivities in these regards made them particularly susceptible to beliefs and perceptions of a paranormal or supernatural type.

Quote:

We hope these findings will help lead intelligent, educated individuals to pursue the genuine mysteries of neuroscience, zoology, and astronomy to the exclusion of the useless pursuit of the phantoms that reside in the interstitial spaces of our infinitely inventive minds.

[Guest]

^Why is their "psychological pattern" theory more valid than an actual experienced phenomenon? Because it's "rational"?

Typical Skeptic psuedo-science. Presume a condition or "rational" cause for a claimed phenomenon, then assume that it explains all claimants of said experienced phenomenon.

[Drew]

Yeah, don't read the studies, I didn't expect any effort on your part to try and explain the phenomenon.

[WSA]

I will read that Drew, thanks. I'm always wary though of linking ephemeral, paranormal phenomenon to very-much-so corporeal encounters with animals. If BF does exist, it isn't a shape-shifting extraterrestrial specter. But, I'll reserve judgment until after I read this.

And I did read it.

If you proceed from the premise that Sasquatch could not be real (as our author presupposes) well, you've saved yourself a ton of heavy lifting, haven't you? So, I guess absent a correlation between dissociative tendencies, indicated by depression and ADHD, and BF encounters, I guess this really tells us nothing, am I right?

He states at the outset:

"It is clearly possible for a human being—for example, at twilight when visual acuity is reduced—to see an angry cow behind a bush but come out of the situation with a clear memory of a menacing Bigfoot."

Really, how condescending and patronizing can one be? Besides, as a thesis, this one ranks right up there with, "It is possible that winged monkeys can be visualized as flying from one's anus." I thought the whole raisin-eater of science was to confirm the likely, not the possible.

Not a whole lot that is new here, or useful to me, but thanks for the link.

Edited February 11, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

^Why is their "psychological pattern" theory more valid than an actual experienced phenomenon? Because it's "rational"?

Typical Skeptic psuedo-science. Presume a condition or "rational" cause for a claimed phenomenon, then assume that it explains all claimants of said experienced phenomenon.

So, Mulder, you are qualified to call a prof of Psychology at California State University, a Fellow of the American College of Forensic Examiners, and author of over 160 publications and papers a psuedo-scientist? Wow, that's quite the claim. Could we have an inkling of your credentials please? I happen to think that the idea of a subclinical dissociation to be pretty interesting and might actually shed some light on some sightings.

I will read that Drew, thanks. I'm always wary though of linking ephemeral, paranormal phenomenon to very-much-so corporeal encounters with animals. If BF does exist, it isn't a shape-shifting extraterrestrial specter. But, I'll reserve judgment until after I read this.

And I did read it.

If you proceed from the premise that Sasquatch could not be real (as our author presupposes) well, you've saved yourself a ton of heavy lifting, haven't you? So, I guess absent a correlation between dissociative tendencies, indicated by depression and ADHD, and BF encounters, I guess this really tells us nothing, am I right?

He states at the outset:

"It is clearly possible for a human being—for example, at twilight when visual acuity is reduced—to see an angry cow behind a bush but come out of the situation with a clear memory of a menacing Bigfoot."

Really, how condescending and patronizing can one be? Besides, as a thesis, this one ranks right up there with, "It is possible that winged monkeys can be visualized as flying from one's anus." I thought the whole raisin-eater of science was to confirm the likely, not the possible.

Not a whole lot that is new here, or useful to me, but thanks for the link.

And if we got all the eye witnesses into a room, and guess what, they display those tendencies, then what? The methodology is flawed because it goes against your idea of the infallible witness? Are you able to debunk the science behind the article?

Edited February 11, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest]

Argument by disqualifiction. Any evidence you can't trump you dismiss as irrelevant.

No sale.

You've been debunked.

Admit it.

Translation: I can't find an example that fits your criteria so I'll change it and declare victory.

Do I need to drag out the Daffy Duck "Ho HA HA DODGE!" clip again? More argument from disqualification fail.

Nope, its a relevent fact that you chose to ignore. How can you expect European to catch a species that lives in a part of the world that they didn't have access to?

Western Science had been told about the gorilla for a long time, and it had a documented history going back millenia by various local populations, but it wasn't "discovered" until someone shot and stuffed one.

Not accepting the existance of an animal until you get a speciman? Thats crazy!

Which is the point. Listen to the locals. They know far more about their lands than you Lab Coat Boys do.

Funny thing about that. The local people actually gave the "lab-coats" parts of the animals. Which is more than I can say for bigfoot "knowers".

Edited February 11, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[dmaker]

I will read that Drew, thanks. I'm always wary though of linking ephemeral, paranormal phenomenon to very-much-so corporeal encounters with animals. If BF does exist, it isn't a shape-shifting extraterrestrial specter. But, I'll reserve judgment until after I read this.

And I did read it.

If you proceed from the premise that Sasquatch could not be real (as our author presupposes) well, you've saved yourself a ton of heavy lifting, haven't you? So, I guess absent a correlation between dissociative tendencies, indicated by depression and ADHD, and BF encounters, I guess this really tells us nothing, am I right?

He states at the outset:

"It is clearly possible for a human being—for example, at twilight when visual acuity is reduced—to see an angry cow behind a bush but come out of the situation with a clear memory of a menacing Bigfoot."

Really, how condescending and patronizing can one be? Besides, as a thesis, this one ranks right up there with, "It is possible that winged monkeys can be visualized as flying from one's anus." I thought the whole raisin-eater of science was to confirm the likely, not the possible.

Not a whole lot that is new here, or useful to me, but thanks for the link.

It's no more crazy as a thesis than "There's a giant hairy ape running around the backyards of North America, and I know it to be true because I read it on the Internet." Yeah, that's not crazy either.

[Drew]

Read the cited studies.

The article is not a study, it is a summary of two studies he has done.

[dmaker]

So the crazy part here is that the author proceeds from a starting point of BF does not exist? And then he sets out to try to use psychology to explain why people may be seeing what they say they are seeing? Right...so he should have set out from the premise that BF does exist, because people say so, and ran out into the woods howling at the moon and banging sticks on trees? That would have been more reasonable for a psychologist?

I have to ask you seriously. If someone is shown a picture of an obvious blobsquatch and they say it's absolutely a Bigfoot, you don't think it's possible there is something clinical going on there? Or in the case of the article, where he did just what I mentioned, something at least sub-clinical?

Maybe we should ask FB/FB

[Drew]

If you proceed from the premise that Sasquatch could not be real (as our author presupposes) well, you've saved yourself a ton of heavy lifting, haven't you?

No. If the study was about supernatural sasquatches, or Grey men, or dragons, it would be the standard premise for starting an article. If you proceed from the premise that Dragons can not be real, you've saved yourself a ton of heavy lifting... Until you can provide verifiable evidence of the creatures existence, it is the norm from which to start.

"It is clearly possible for a human being—for example, at twilight when visual acuity is reduced—to see an angry cow behind a bush but come out of the situation with a clear memory of a menacing Bigfoot."

Evidently you missed the survey I did here, that asked people if they had ever had a hallucination while driving. The positive responses approached 40%, If you don't think truck drivers see things morph into objects that don't make any sense, I'd suggest you look up something called 'Black dog'

Every one of you has been there.

Your faculties are starting to fade

and your nodding off at the wheel.

You're starting to dance around in the lane

( or into the other lane ) when you see it.

I'm talking about the black dog that jumps

out from the brush beyond the shoulder.

Not your neighbor's mascot, but one that has

popped up out of your head from the lack of

delusionary dreamland that keeps your rhythms

in check.

It may appear as the black dog, a flock of geese,

or something dark and fuzzy crawling in the road.

When you do see it one thing is certain.

It's time to pull over and get off the

road quick or you may find yourself

bottoms up in the ditch.

http://www.layover.com/forums/layovers-lounge-archive/t-if-you-see-the-black-dog-6334.html

Really, how condescending and patronizing can one be?

Really? How defensive can one be? Just because you think there is a bigfoot, and have chosen your side, are you seriously not open-minded enough to think that the human mind is capable of building an object or entity out of incomplete visual stimuli?

Besides, as a thesis, this one ranks right up there with, "It is possible that winged monkeys can be visualized as flying from one's anus." I thought the whole raisin-eater of science was to confirm the likely, not the possible.

It clearly does not rank up there with that. It is a known fact that people can mistake things they think they see when tired. Ask almost any police officer that has responded to a single vehicle crash at 4 in the morning. Sometimes the driver will say something was in the road, a car tire for example. They will search the roadway and not find anything. Now read that truckers advice above. You are simply trying to discount a known human phenomenon, because it doesn't fit with your belief that a giant human hairy beast is hiding in the woods and rural side roads of North America.

Not a whole lot that is new here, or useful to me, but thanks for the link.

It is clearly new to you, if you do not know anything about sleep hallucinations, and think that someone seeing a cow, and thinking it is a Bigfoot is not a real, legitimate description of a typical late-night driving hallucination.

[WSA]

Oh, most certainly Drew. I've had plenty of hallucinations while driving, walking in the woods at night, etc....but, without exception they were transitory and resolved by the time my tired/distracted brain finally got around to understanding what my eyes were REALLY seeing. Based on my experience in life, most everyone has had that happen to them on multiple occasions. Don't forget as well: These are not just visual hallucinations, if hallucinations they are. They are also olfactory, audible (and even) extra-sensory experiences. They are also (like the instant report) a shared experience. So? Mass hysteria? Coincidental occurrences? Bad water or an undigested piece of cheese Mr. Marley? C'mon.

I'm agreeing with every conclusion these studies make, mainly because I have to take their word for it and not substitute my own judgment for the authors'. What I am disagreeing with is that this goes far at all towards a comprehensive explanation of what is in the sighting report database. Wasn't that the original idea? Just a WAG as to how many reports this explains? Maybe a couple of percentage points is all. As I've said before, I'm curious as to where all these hallucinating dissociative types hang out. If my research is any indication, a lot of them are employed in our communities in positions of responsibility, like the man who filed the report I linked y'all to.

And, to the contrary my friend. I'm not proceeding from the point of view that Sasquatch is real. My get-go determination is I DON'T KNOW. Puts me yards ahead on the objectivity scale.

Edited February 11, 2013 by WSA

[dmaker]

^^ WSA, yes exactly. The opening abstract states that the eye witness making the report would not seem the likely type, i.e. they are not crazy. They are, as you put it, employed in our communities in positions of responsibility. To quote the article :

"...many of the people who report these things are sober, educated, reasonable individuals. Many are ac­tively adverse to publicity, and an ap­preciable fraction of them passes polygraph tests. In short, many of these witnesses—in fact, probably the majority of them—are neither lying nor mentally ill. They have normal nervous systems, and they are convinced that they have experienced something extraordinary. "

Probably just like the man who filed the report you linked us all to.

[Drew]

Some people have the ability to know when they had a hallucination, and write-it off as a normal side-effect of being on the road too long. You and I fall into this category.

Unfortunately, society has told us that if you have a hallucination, you are a whack-job. You and I know this is not true. A hallucination does not equal crazy. However, to someone who does not know this, the immediate reaction to seeing something funny on the road, is to be scared, to look for a rational explanation other than "I am going crazy" (which is what they think society will think of them). One easily accessible place to get this rationalization is from Bigfoot groups. The hallucination does not mean someone is crazy, however MANY people believe that if they tell people they had a hallucination, then they will think they are crazy. This leads to the obvious choice, I did not have a hallucination, I saw a Bigfoot. 'Thousands of people have seen it, they were not hallucinating, therefore, I was not hallucinating, and I will not be labeled as 'Crazy' by society'. Bigfoot is an easy way to rationalize something they saw, that they do not understand was simply a hallucination. It may only explain 10% of the sightings, but it may explain many of the sightings. If Bigfootry attracts people prone to hallucinations, perhaps it is much higher than we can fathom.

From a 1961 study on fatigue

Hypnagogic hallucinations (McFarland and Moseley 1954), in which,

after driving long distances, drivers imagine they see something on

the road, and make emergency stops: the driver carries out the

emergency stop, sometimes driving off the road, without recognizing

that the situation is not real. The phenomenon occurs typically at

night, while the vehicle is moving but while the driver's activity is

at a low level. The content of an hallucination is most probably

related to the driver's individual experience, but the frequency of

occurrence seems to be very high in certain groups. All 33 of a group

of long haul truck drivers interviewed reported having experienced

these hallucinations, mainly at night (i\'lcFarland and Moseley I!l54),

whilst nonc of a group of 20 local truck drivers had done so. These

drivers thought that the frequency of the hallucinations had been

reduced considerably after the introduction of a shorter working day.

ERG. K

Downloaded by [75.144.89.126] at 12:33 11 February 2013 140 A. Crawford

http://www.tandfonli...140136108930515

Edited February 11, 2013 by Drew