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

[Guest BFSleuth]

So, I guess the idea of studying the remaining 212 (or 215) isn't going to happen because statistically the 1st 4 are significant?

[Guest RayG]

BFSleuth, I'll ask you the same thing I asked indiefoot, can you give your reasoning as to why you would find reports 1723, 31968, 33257, and 35574 convincing or compelling?

Yes, I've asked that the list of 215 be trimmed down to the best 50. I think that's a reasonable request. Is it that hard to find 50 really ~good~ Class A reports? I don't seem to be having much success.

Personally, I think there are waaaaaay too many Class A reports. For one thing how do you improve on that? Do you start handing out Class AA, or Class A+ reports?

I don't think any report should be considered Class A if no on-site investigation took place, the report is years, or (especially) decades old, and the sole criteria seems to be how impressive or credible the witness sounds over the phone. For example, three of the Class A reports added to the database over the past two months were witnessed back in the 70's. Really?

And if that idiot hadn't gotten himself run over and killed in Montana, you can rest assured he would have eventually caused at least one more Class A report to be added to the database. Two impressionable teenage girls, in two separate cars, see something huge and hairy walking upright on the side of the road, and would have sounded quite sincere and credible as they recalled the events of that night. It would have been dutifully written up and added to the other thousands of reports in the database, and proponents would refer to it as yet another example of bigfoot evidence.

Makes me wonder how many other times (other than the few we know about) someone has dressed up to create a fake sighting.

RayG

[Guest thermalman]

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.

Agreed.

I agree that quantity is no substitute for quality, and that most are not convincing, yet if only one is true...

Agreed. Only one needs to be true.

An excellent suggestion Transformer.

Mulder, can you present the reasoning behind why you think the specific reports I reviewed are so compelling? Here are the reports:

1723

31968

33257

Thanks.

RayG

I've read them, and they're not.

Hey Ray, which three do you find MOST compelling?

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

Agreed. And sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction!

Edited September 1, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest BFSleuth]

Tell ya what, you present the top 10% of all those thousands of reports and I'll get to work on them.

BFSleuth, I'll ask you the same thing I asked indiefoot, can you give your reasoning as to why you would find reports 1723, 31968, 33257, and 35574 convincing or compelling?

Yes, I've asked that the list of 215 be trimmed down to the best 50. I think that's a reasonable request. Is it that hard to find 50 really ~good~ Class A reports? I don't seem to be having much success.

I thought perhaps you might have bitten off a large chew with your initial statement. Rather than stopping after four reports and begging us to help you out, just go ahead and complete your process and report back your findings. I'm not saying this in any spirit of confrontation, I would appreciate your input after you have gone through the process. Your process or methods for going about your effort will be of interest not only to myself, but I think will be enlightening for all of us to engage in an exercise of looking at sighting reports through critical eyes. It will be beneficial.

Part of the reason I'm hoping you complete the process is that we might learn from your experience and apply methods to how the BFF might go about doing our own sighting report follow ups. What would be the best way to tackle the follow up investigation for each report? How do we balance the needs of the witness against the needs of the researcher and the research community? How (or can) we investigate reports from events of years ago effectively? Etc.

[bipedalist]

Yeah BFS, I'd suggest that RayG spread out the work amongst his more pseudo-skeptical colleagues, it should speed the process up considerably.

[Guest RayG]

I thought perhaps you might have bitten off a large chew with your initial statement.

In a similar manner, I thought the fact that there were thousands of reports likely meant there was a lot of puffery involved. You know, anything goes when it's bigfoot. It seems I wasn't so far off base. How about we narrow it down even further? Proponents pick out just 10% of the 215 Class A reports that they would consider convincing. That's only 21 reports folks. In the meantime, I will continue to look at, and report back on random Class A reports.

Speaking of large chews, I singled out a small mouthful, a mere taste from the mountain of reports, and specifically asked for your reasoning as to why you would find those reports (1723, 31968, 33257, and 35574) convincing or compelling. Any chance I can get a reply?

And those three 'recent' reports from the 70's? That would be #35477, #32435, and #21563. You can add them to the others I haven't found convincing. If you're trying to use memories from 40 years ago or more to sound really convincing, it isn't. The investigator calls one witness 'credible', and another 'honest and forthright', which means absolutely nothing. It's a way of using loaded language to get readers to regard the story as more believable. Maybe they should stop interjecting their personal opinions about someone's character in these reports.

Rather than stopping after four reports and begging us to help you out, just go ahead and complete your process and report back your findings.

I don't consider it begging to ask proponents to provide their reasoning behind why they think specific reports are convincing. So far it appears that only thermalman has bothered to comment on the ones I asked about.

I'm not saying this in any spirit of confrontation, I would appreciate your input after you have gone through the process. Your process or methods for going about your effort will be of interest not only to myself, but I think will be enlightening for all of us to engage in an exercise of looking at sighting reports through critical eyes. It will be beneficial.

And what happens to these reports that have been looked at with a critical eye, so to speak? Are the unconvincing ones downgraded to a lesser classification? Are some of them removed from the database entirely? Are they placed in a special section? And who ends up training the field investigators, so they maybe ask viable questions, and follow up on some of the details that are either present or missing altogether?

Part of the reason I'm hoping you complete the process is that we might learn from your experience and apply methods to how the BFF might go about doing our own sighting report follow ups. What would be the best way to tackle the follow up investigation for each report? How do we balance the needs of the witness against the needs of the researcher and the research community? How (or can) we investigate reports from events of years ago effectively? Etc.

Well, I've been hoping the whole of bigfootdom would contribute to the process by helping to weed out the questionable reports. But alas, I fear dubious reports get added to the pile, like some giant mound of wood shavings, faster than anyone can even try to critique them.

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to bigfoot, but I've done a lot of reading, and there's no shortage of books out there that I would recommend for the bigfoot enthusiast. Yes, yes, the books by Meldrum, Green, Krantz, etc., sure, but I'm talking about the other books. The ones like Asking the Right Questions, Believing Bull+++t, Crimes Against Logic, and Being Logical.

One of my favorites has to be Becoming a Critical Thinker. If you're only going to get one book on critical thinking, get that one.

Read some of those and then check out some of the same reports you once thought were very compelling.

RayG

[Martin]

.............Well, I've been hoping the whole of bigfootdom would contribute to the process by helping to weed out the questionable reports..............

RayG

Most suburban sasquatch sightings have to go. Some huge percentage could be removed with google earth alone.

Bigfoot can't be the most elusive creature and live in the suburbs.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Martin

[Guest]

Well, I've been hoping the whole of bigfootdom would contribute to the process by helping to weed out the questionable reports. But alas, I fear dubious reports get added to the pile, like some giant mound of wood shavings, faster than anyone can even try to critique them.

RayG

Allowing people to report anonymously is a double edged sword. Folks who would not otherwise share their stories would come forward. But at the same time, you get those, who for whatever reason, get their jollies by fabricating sightings. They know by adding details like "avid outdoorsman", "hunter", "worked as a cop . . ." will make their story all that more compelling.

[Sunflower]

Most suburban sasquatch sightings have to go. Some huge percentage could be removed with google earth alone.

Bigfoot can't be the most elusive creature and live in the suburbs.

Are you absolutely positively sure about that? Just curious, how you could possibly know that? What is your definition of "the suburbs?"

[Guest RayG]

I'd say the dictionary definition of 'suburb' is ok. But what about investigators who make up new definitions for 'remote'? Check out this report and tell me if you agree with the investigator, who called that a "remote area".

We can easily pinpoint the location and tell how far from the suburbs the supposed creature was sighted, as well as the population of the surrounding area. What makes that a 'remote area'?

RayG

[Sunflower]

I agree with you, not too remote LOL. We would have to question the investigator on that one. To me it seems it's on the way NW to a very remote area and maybe it was an oversight for the description. Just guessing....

[Guest COGrizzly]

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=26522

There ya go RayG. Of course just my opinion.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Does this also mean we should redefine sightings of bears, cougars, or other large predators in urban centers? Are these now going to be categorized as hoaxes, hallucinations, or hijinks?

[bipedalist]

I'd say the dictionary definition of 'suburb' is ok. But what about investigators who make up new definitions for 'remote'? Check out this report and tell me if you agree with the investigator, who called that a "remote area".

We can easily pinpoint the location and tell how far from the suburbs the supposed creature was sighted, as well as the population of the surrounding area. What makes that a 'remote area'?

RayG

Agree with you on remote as needing an operational definition. Something along the lines of two miles away from the nearest mapped dirt/gravel/paved road or closed logging road or something along those lines. It is always rather amusing what some consider remote and what other's consider just not on a developed trail. Then we have the issue of what is a trail, game trail, hiking trail, identified and marked/unmarked. Quite the trial for trails for sure. Public vs. private land is a good placard to use also. Alot of public/private land is remote, but there is a lot of habitat within a couple miles of the perimeters of small towns that some could call suburbia I'd imagine, that is not too far, within several miles of remote.

[Guest]

Bringing up the suburb reminds of the coyote problem in coeur d'alene, Idaho a while ago. People would let their little dogs out to use the bathroom and coyotes would grab them. The police said it's not their problem it's a game dept. problem. The game dept. said it's not their problem because it was in the suburbs of the city, so its a police dept. problem or animal control. Well people got tired of the run around and started shooting the coyotes even after the police told them not to. If the squatch was showing up in the suburbs up here, It's probably been shoot at a few times.