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

[Guest BFSleuth]

RayG, do you need one of us proponents to make the list of 216 class A sighting reports or is this something that you can handle from the SSR? Perhaps this is worthy of a separate thread and should make for an interesting exercise in skeptic debunking.

You might need to recruit a few fellow skeptics to help, I'm just wondering how you are going to go about debunking each report?

[HOLDMYBEER]

RayG, do you need one of us proponents to make the list of 216 class A sighting reports or is this something that you can handle from the SSR? Perhaps this is worthy of a separate thread and should make for an interesting exercise in skeptic debunking.

You might need to recruit a few fellow skeptics to help, I'm just wondering how you are going to go about debunking each report?

You have provided a way to quantify the numbers of reports, but what is the quality of the reports? What is the quality of each report? Is there an investigative standard that each report meets? How can you expect any attempt at debunking a report if the report contains nothing but anecdote? Do the reports contain witness names and contact numbers? Do they contain a transcript of what the witness(es) said? Do the reports contain some inventory of evidence seized and some means of examining or reviewing results of evidential examinations? Numbers mean nothing if the reports aren't grounded to reviewable facts. Playing real tennis requires a net.

Edited August 29, 2012 by HOLDMYBEER

[gigantor]

We don't have our own sightings database yet, so we don't control those parameters. The SSR is a classification system which depends on volunteers and it does have a rating system for each report. It simply points back to the source of the report.

We are working on our own sightings database which will have all of the details you mention and more. It will take time and if anyone wants to help either classify, brainstorm the design or write code, we welcome all who want to contribute in their own way.

It is a crowd source project in the premium section. Instead of being a naysayer, maybe you can help us Holdmybeer and influence the project in such a way that meets your strict criteria.

I guess your post is aimed at defending the inability of debunking each and every witness account. You failed.

Edited August 29, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest BFSleuth]

^^ I believe your questions should be directed to RayG. He's the one that volunteered to vet the reports. Perhaps you might want to PM him and start working on a methodology, he might need some help.

There's a reason I used the signature line regarding "... it is worthy of mention that those who are loudest in denouncing him as a fairy-tale-teller are least anxious to put the wild man's existence to the test of investigation." Well, Ray has volunteered to put the 216 class A sightings to the test, and I commend him for the effort.

[HOLDMYBEER]

Please understand, I don't find fault with what has been done. Kudos to you and all the thought behind SSR. The SSR is almost identical to what is used for tracking serial offenders across jurisdictional boundaries. It can be a useful system for telling investigators in a timely way what has been reported, and where to go to find out more about it. But the ultimate value of such indexing is largely determined by having access to the original reports and original investigators. No system can contain all the detail that constitutes an adequate report. Happiness is found in the details.

[Guest RayG]

Well, I've only taken a look at the first four reports so far.... but I was hoping these 216 Class A reports would contain enough convincing evidence that evan a skeptical old asshat like myself would have to admit the error of his ways. Gigantor did mention that if we were to extrapolate, then 50% of all the reports would be Class A reports.

I found three of the first four quite unconvincing however, which means if we extrapolate for unconvincing Class A reports according to RayG, then 75% of those 216 reports are unconvincing. Here's my closer look at three of those first four reports, and why I find them unconvincing...

The first Class A report (#1723) has no real follow-up, and is a second-hand story told 28 years after it happened, by someone calling in to a radio show. Sorry, but anecdotes don't do it for me. It's just another unconfirmed story with no supportive evidence. Verdict: Unconvincing.

Second Class A report (#31968) is reported nearly 3 decades afterwards. The only other witness is no longer alive, and the only investigation was done by phone. No tracks in the snow (I'm guessing there's snow in January in Illinois), no indication how long the subject was observed, no clear details, no more convincing than the first report. It amounts to another anecdote, completely unsupported by any evidence. Verdict: Unconvincing.

The witness for Class A report #33257 seems to be mistaken about how cold it was in Malta in January 2011. A weather report for the general area show the coldest it got in Malta that month was 33 below, and that was on January 31st. Makes me wonder how much investigation the investigator conducted while researching the report. And it seems rather surprising that the tow-truck driver didn't contact someone on his radio right after his sighting. He does have a radio, right? There should have been footprints galore in all that deep snow, and since the cop wouldn't have been that far away at the time of his sighting, he seems to have missed an opportunity to have the evidence of an elk being dragged away by a muscular biped witnessed by at least two other people. And maybe, just maybe, that copy would have turned his car around and came back to investigate. Maybe he would have seen the sign of something dragging the elk away, and maybe he would have followed a short way and found some hair stuck on some branches. Who knows what he might have found? Instead, we have no police report, no pictures or descriptions of tracks, and no tow receipts to ensure he was correct with his dates. So once again, we have nothing more than an anecdote, quite unsupported by any actual evidence. Verdict: Unconvincing.

So three of the first four Class A reports are unconvincing to me, but then I'm picking up on the inconsistencies, omissions, missed opportunities, and lack of supportive evidence.

These are supposed to be some of the best reports in the database?

RayG

[gigantor]

Thanks Holdmybeer, I agree. That's what we're working on now and we do need help. I'm attempting to engage the BFF community to contribute, there is much skill among the membership. The SSR was the first step, the low hanging fruit if you will.

Ray, no they are not the "best". We classify them by date, so it's first-come, first-serve.

Yet, out of the 4, one was convincing? all it takes is one my friend. you only have 212 to go!

Edited August 29, 2012 by gigantor

[HOLDMYBEER]

Ok, so the ball is being batted between BFS and RayG. I guess I thought your reference to 216 class A reports denoted some qualitative value to the number of reports. You are apparently talking about 216 unvetted reports, for what argumentative value thats worth.

Volunteers or not, debunking 216 unvetted reports may not be possible if the facts aren't there in the first place.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Please understand, I don't find fault with what has been done. Kudos to you and all the thought behind SSR. The SSR is almost identical to what is used for tracking serial offenders across jurisdictional boundaries. It can be a useful system for telling investigators in a timely way what has been reported, and where to go to find out more about it. But the ultimate value of such indexing is largely determined by having access to the original reports and original investigators. No system can contain all the detail that constitutes an adequate report. Happiness is found in the details.

The SSR is a huge undertaking of the BFF that is initially going to code in the public sighting reports of a number of organizations and report sources (including Tirademan's excellent historical news reports). Each report should have a link back to the original sighting report from the BFRO or wherever the report originated. The SSR itself will be a tool, a searchable database.

The ultimate goal will be for a BFF based sighting report system, with witnesses available for discussion, questions, and review. Many of our forum members are witnesses and have already posted their personal sighting reports.

These are supposed to be some of the best reports in the database?

As Gigantor noted, the 216 are simply the Class A sighting reports. As you've already noted, many of the sighting reports from other organizations will have varying levels of follow up research. That's one reason I'm looking forward to have some way to have more thorough research as we develop our own sighting reports.

I would also like to add that those that see any weaknesses in the current SSR effort are welcome and encouraged to come and join the effort, make suggestions, and code in new reports. It is a big undertaking and many thanks are due to all the forum members that are working on this project, and in particular to Gigantor for leading the effort.

[Guest RayG]

Nope, didn't find the fourth one convincing either, just didn't take the time to properly debunk it.

Surely there's a report in there that will topple me off the fence once and for all... right?

RayG

[Guest BFSleuth]

4 down, 212 to go...

[gigantor]

I guess I thought your reference to 216 class A reports denoted some qualitative value to the number of reports.

Well, the 216 reports are rated as Class A by the BFRO and we can only surmise that they have vetted them, they claim so anyway. All we can do is take their word for it. I can't vouch for their thoroughness, but they are vetted reports. I do know some of their investigators and respect them.

The details you seek may not be public though.

Edited August 29, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest]

He was asked not to share it and he is a man of his word. So, he has kept his word on that.

KB

The "why not share" was directed towards the owner of the video, and to owners of BF related material in general.

[gigantor]

That is something we agree on Marlboro, it's illogical to withhold evidence.

[Guest]

That is something we agree on Marlboro, it's illogical to withhold evidence.

But the one aspect I've never considered was the ridicule factor as many people here ponited out.