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

[Guest BFSleuth]

RayG, your points are excellent. When reading through BFRO sighting reports the follow up investigation reports very from no written report attached, to a summary of what the original report said, to "I had a phone conversation and it seemed like he/she was telling the truth", to really good ones that go on sight and take pictures and follow up interviews. I take the follow up investigation into consideration when weighting the importance of a sighting report. Some investigators do an excellent job, others don't post enough follow up information to give us any more detail or know whether they did any fact checking.

A general question for membership here is what sighting report investigations do you like (whether particular BFRO reports or other organizations) and why?

[Guest JUDAS BEAST]

Watch this

[Cotter]

Regarding the bank thermometer. Without knowing when it was calibrated (probably hadn't been calibrated since it was installed), you can't really estimate how accurate the thermometer was.

Additionally, was it windy, rainy, humidity level, etc....all of those could play a role in the readout. I wouldn't necessarily condemn the story on that basis alone, tho it is a suspect detail.

Oh, and Ray - I agree with your assessment. Bottom line, you can never be sure if an account is true, much less accurate.

[Guest thermalman]

Are you talking about the huge database (4,434 in North America) at the BFRO? If so, are you including their Class B reports?

RayG

I, for one, enjoy the Class A reports. I feel that most of them are from honest, down to earth people, who have actually seen something that they have no way of explaining. They have the integrity that many of the other classifications lack. Without personally investigating the reports myself, who am I to judge these people? I don't put much stalk into the Class B's because the variables have increased immensely, allowing misidentification to proliferate. Stick structures is another area whereas the evidence is slim to none at best that BF was involved.

What do you make of sighting reports made by extremely well respected researchers?

They saw what they saw. I would agree that no one is in any position to question them without supportive evidence to prove otherwise from the get go.

[HOLDMYBEER]

They saw what they saw. I would agree that no one is in any position to question them without supportive evidence to prove otherwise from the get go.

I couldn't disagree more. If you are an investigator, your role is to collect and examine evidence. You accept no evidence you haven't vetted. If it hasn't been documented and the document available for review, it didn't happen.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

If it hasn't been documented and the document available for review, it didn't happen.

Documentation dictates what happened? I thought it was the other way around . Patterson documented his close encounter, but how many scientists accept it as real?

[Guest RayG]

I, for one, enjoy the Class A reports. I feel that most of them are from honest, down to earth people, who have actually seen something that they have no way of explaining. They have the integrity that many of the other classifications lack.

Would it be safe to say that you accept the three Class A reports I touched upon as convincing evidence? If so, would it also be safe to say that you're accepting them on faith or a gut feeling, rather than any supportive evidence?

The database may contain thousands of reports, but how many of them are just tossed on there to pad the numbers? Have a look at Class B report #35574 and share your thoughts on whether or not it sounds like a legitimate report. What aspects make it sound convincing? What aspects make it sound unconvincing?

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

No. it's not safe to say that? Assuming that, is hypothetical thinking and so is dismissing 100% of the reports as fake! MOST of the Class A's are likely the honest truth from those who are filing their reports. Like many witnesses at an accident, not all the details are the same from the different witnesses, plus we were not there.

Class B's are based more on unknown sounds and first time witness discoveries of things (minus BF himself) by people who then ASSUME that BF was the only answer to their discovery and report it to BFRO. #35574 is a good example.There is definitely a greater lack of evidence than the direct eyewitness accounts in Class A's.

I like to think I keep things real and logic, but will definitely call a misunderstanding "a misunderstanding".

Edited August 31, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest]

I feel that most of them are from honest, down to earth people, who have actually seen something that they have no way of explaining. . . .Without personally investigating the reports myself, who am I to judge these people?

These bolded terms illustrate well some of the problems with using anecdotes to make a decision about the veracity of a claim:

*You feel, but you can't know.

*People have seen something. Perhaps, although we need to be adult enough to recognize many, many people lie about stuff every day and for any number of motivations. Furthermore, even if people have seen something that can't explain, that does not mean that the thing they saw was a "bigfoot."

*Judging people? Don't judge the people, judge the claim. Honest, healthy, intelligent people can make claims of things that aren't true. It's not a character flaw to be absolutely convinced that you saw a bigfoot, but to actually be wrong about that.

[Guest UPs]

Sas, you don't seem to have a problem making a decision based on the claims, you have tossed all of them out regardless of the details, thoroughness of the investigation, and witness credibility.

Ray, good posts. We do have to remember that these reports will never be used solely to prove bf exists, but more as a tool for researchers to learn as much as they can about bf. I wonder how many reports do not get investigated at all because of proper vetting. Also, over time, details in our minds may be less accurate, but not necessarily completely inaccurate.

I have asked this question before, but if bf is proven to exist, would you change your opinion of any reports you have read? If yes, then I believe you are not basing your opinion on the report itself, but on your current belief system. The PGF is a prime example of this. Personally, I think many of the reports are mostly accurate, but I simply do not know that as a fact.

[Guest John]

Honest, healthy, intelligent people can make claims of things that aren't true. It's not a character flaw to be absolutely convinced that you saw a bigfoot, but to actually be wrong about that.

I can attest first hand that massive perceptual breakdowns can and do occur. However I accept that what I 'saw' in no way shape or form fitted into the natural world (folk-law - perhaps). I don't insist 'I know what I saw' because I 'know' I didn't. As a result I'm always a little puzzled as to why some people take it personally or as an insult when it's suggested they (or a person who's report they've read) were perhaps mistaken. These things do happen.

Perhaps I was fortunate that my experience didn't fit any pop-culture 'entity' for me to pin it on.

Edit for spelling & quote tidy

Edited August 31, 2012 by John

[Guest]

Sas, you don't seem to have a problem making a decision based on the claims, you have tossed all of them out regardless of the details, thoroughness of the investigation, and witness credibility.

I haven't tossed them out. The point is that their authenticity is unknowable. A report is not erroneous because it is anecdotal. The problem with it being anecdotal is that it cannot be unambiguously evaluated.

[Guest thermalman]

So Sas, are all the claimant's liars or hoaxer's? It's a bold statement you're making without any investigation on your part. Are you sayinng you're the only credible person on the planet? Just asking.

These bolded terms illustrate well some of the problems with using anecdotes to make a decision about the veracity of a claim:

*You feel, but you can't know.

*People have seen something. Perhaps, although we need to be adult enough to recognize many, many people lie about stuff every day and for any number of motivations. Furthermore, even if people have seen something that can't explain, that does not mean that the thing they saw was a "bigfoot."

*Judging people? Don't judge the people, judge the claim. Honest, healthy, intelligent people can make claims of things that aren't true. It's not a character flaw to be absolutely convinced that you saw a bigfoot, but to actually be wrong about that.

Yet, you seem to KNOW, by the way you're dimissing all the claims? I won't be as bold to judge you or your claims Sas. I will just suggest a little open-mindedness and optimism might be in order here.

I couldn't disagree more. If you are an investigator, your role is to collect and examine evidence. You accept no evidence you haven't vetted. If it hasn't been documented and the document available for review, it didn't happen.

Can you "honestly" say that......even though you were not there? This is another bold hypothesis by someone, towards an unkown situation where the hypothesizer wasn't even there to investigate the claim themselves. I guess I like to see the good in people. And until they prove they're not, everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, until an investigation proves them wrong.

Edited August 31, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest BFSleuth]

IMHO this discussion over the last page points to the difficulties of accepting anecdotal accounts at face value. This is why for my own purposes I give a weighting of how valuable I think each report is, given how old some of the reports are, the amount of follow up investigation, and the circumstances of the report. For example, I give no weight (or credence) to the recent BFRO sighting report where the woman claims a BF jumped in front of her car and then laid down and got run over by her small car without damaging her car other than a few hairs left on the front bumper that she then threw away. There's more red flags in that report than you can shake a stick at.

I might also add that anecdotal evidence rises to the level of "observation" when the observer is a scientist taking field notes. This conundrum has been pointed out before in other threads. But remember that field notes are often taken during the event or just after the event in a manner that is meant to capture as much information while memory or observations are fresh with as many details as possible. It seems to be a rare event for lay people with a BF sighting to make this level of effort to write everything down while it is fresh, with drawings, or photographs to back up their sighting. Often it seems they are highly reluctant to record the event or share the event until years later. My own brother's account wasn't told to the BFRO until over 20 years after the event, and because of that he had a number of discrepancies in his account.

It should also be pointed out that BFRO investigators and other research organization investigators are operating on a limited (ie. no) budget basis, so phone interviews are common. On sight investigations for sighting reports in remote locations are rare to non-existent, especially if the reports are years after the fact.

[HOLDMYBEER]

Documentation dictates what happened? I thought it was the other way around . Patterson documented his close encounter, but how many scientists accept it as real?

The PGF suffers from not having been documented at the time it occurred. The lack of documentation at the time has caused people to argue over the facts for the past 40 years. Coverage of the site at the time probably would have resolved the legitimacy of the film right then and there. No one is really sure of what path the evidence took from Bluff Creek to Yakima. People are still just trying to figure out what date the film was made. Had a serious documentation effort occurred when the film was made, half the threads in this forum wouldn't have happened.