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

[Guest UPs]

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.

That was fair and accurate, IMO. UPs

[HOLDMYBEER]

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.

Yes, the role of the investigator is to recognize and preserve evidence, making it available for review. Questioning a witness is pretty fundamental evidence. And most investigations are focused on events that occurred, or were alleged to have occurred, outside the investigator's presence.

I know it's a hurdle for many people to understand, but the best friend a witness to an encounter can have is a competent investigator. And for what it's worth, if I had an encounter during one of my outings in the bush, the first thing I would do is call a group of my investigator friends to the site for them to conduct their own investigation. I would have no role other than being a witness.

[Cotter]

^ Exactly. Unfortunately most that have an encounter don't know the resources available until well after the scene is cold.

[Guest thermalman]

Yes, the role of the investigator is to recognize and preserve evidence, making it available for review. Questioning a witness is pretty fundamental evidence. And most investigations are focused on events that occurred, or were alleged to have occurred, outside the investigator's presence.

I know it's a hurdle for many people to understand, but the best friend a witness to an encounter can have is a competent investigator. And for what it's worth, if I had an encounter during one of my outings in the bush, the first thing I would do is call a group of my investigator friends to the site for them to conduct their own investigation. I would have no role other than being a witness.

ONLY if there is evidence available to collect! Myself, I would get down and dirty with the rest of them, only because I would want to know more about what I saw and made sure no evidence was missed. But that's just me. I love to get involved with detail.

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.

I agree, they should have or collected more physical evidence. But, the lack of, does not mean they didn't see something. I mean, .......really now, how does one collect evidence of sighting a bald eagle that flew by? It's a visual sighting without a remote chance of collecting any physical evidence. In some cases, the same scenario can happen on the ground as well. Opportunity has to present itself, with the capability to aquire the physical proof. Don't you agree?

That was fair and accurate, IMO. UPs

Would it be safe to say that Sas's thoughts are anecdotal towards all the reports?

Edited August 31, 2012 by thermalman

[HOLDMYBEER]

I agree there has to be some evidence to collect. The biggest part of the job is to recognize the presence of evidence in all its possible forms. Virtually anything can be considered evidence if it goes to the credibility of the witness.

[indiefoot]

This is all just flirting, the skeptics aren't going to sign off on any sighting. There could be a thorough investigation by professionals and the best you are going to get is "I don't know what they saw". It's easy to be a critic.

This is a lot more fun if you just relax and study the BF.

[Guest thermalman]

I agree there has to be some evidence to collect. The biggest part of the job is to recognize the presence of evidence in all its possible forms. Virtually anything can be considered evidence if it goes to the credibility of the witness.

Including sightings only. The eagle fly by is a good example of witness testimony without any collection of physical evidence.

[Guest RayG]

It's even easier to suspend skepticism and just accept bigfoot reports at face value. I did that for years, but not any more.

indiefoot, can you give your reasoning as to why you would find reports 1723, 31968, 33257, and 35574 convincing or compelling?

(just google 'BFRO report ____' filling in the applicable report number to find the individual reports)

RayG

[indiefoot]

Ray,

Except for the most obviously goofy ones, I don't accept or not accept the reports. I file them away and compare them to each other, compare them to what I've seen myself. I watch for patterns. I'm not out to prove Bigfoot to myself so I don't need them for that. I know BF is out there so it means that some of the reports could be the real deal.

I read one occasionally that has a ring of truth to it, but who knows, there are some gifted story tellers out there in the boonys. I read others that I hope are true because they are cool in one way or another.

What I won't do is throw them out whole or throw all of them out one at a time, because I can find a flaw. There is a population of Bigfoot out there that are the reason there are thousands of reports... good, bad, and indifferent.

Edited September 1, 2012 by indiefoot

[Guest RayG]

Me, I look for the truth. I look for facts. I look for things supported by evidence. When those things are lacking, and the report is a compilation of inconsistencies tied up neatly as an anecdote, then I find it unconvincing.

Given the lack of investigation or skepticism in a great many of these 'thousands' of reports, I find it hard to accept them as worthwhile and convincing.

RayG

[gigantor]

But Ray, you still have 212 to go.. err... volunteers added another 3 today... make that 215 to go.

[Guest RayG]

Yes, but don't forget... when I extrapolate from the reports I've already looked at, 75% of those 215 would be unconvincing.

All I ask is that the folks promoting these reports, present the best 50 or so. The creme de la creme.

Implying that a compilation of thousands of bigfoot reports somehow makes the evidence for bigfoot more compelling, is like calling War and Peace an excellent book because it's so thick. Think quality not quantity.

And I've yet to hear convincing reasons from anyone for accepting the reports I linked to in post #349.

RayG

[gigantor]

I agree that quantity is no substitute for quality, and that most are not convincing, yet if only one is true... Edited September 1, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

This may seem really weird, but on average I find the Class B sightings a bit more credible. Most guys who hoax probably submit corny class A ones! Alright, I think I've said enough.

[gigantor]

If anybody has a good insight into the reports, it's you OS. You've classified more than anyone else.

BTW, I need to pick your brain on the witness interview process...

Edited September 1, 2012 by gigantor