So Called "myth"

[Guest alex]

You signed up as Makaya and as Alex, so I figured if you could post as multiple people, I might as well call you multiple people. Makaya has been deleted now, but It won't be long before Blue Bear shows up I'm sure.

........No, i signed up as Alex, my nickname is Makaya, I am not two people, I am one person

[Guest]

... I am not two people, I am one person

I took that to be his point.

[masterbarber]

but It won't be long before Blue Bear shows up I'm sure.

Nope, fire got him

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Talked to Alex last night in the chat and asked him some questions about the past and he fessed up, he said he has changed so i'll give him the benefit.

[Guest]

Kind of where I find myself. Granted, it was over 30 years ago, but I have some experience in working with bears. I can see where some less experienced weekend warriors may confuse a bear with a BF, but not anyone with any semblance of experience in the woods.

When bears are walking on two-legs they appear very awkward. Plus, their hind legs are relatively short. I think this contributes to the awkwardness when they are on two legs.

Bears, no doubt, do account for a small percentage of alleged BF sightings. But I think that number is small. The experience in the woods of the witness should play a role in the evaluation process IMO. I highly doubt anyone with any real experience would mistake a bear for a BF.

I agree with HR about the small percentage of alleged sightings. And while i don;t know what constitutes "real experience' in the woods, I have known what a bear looks like, since i was a small child. I mean.. a bear has a snout, a muzzle, like a dog, I've seen many in the Zoo, several in the wild. I wonder how often someone sees a Bear, standing upright and walking on two legs, and can't identify it as a bear? I have personal experience in seeing "not a bear", I was shocked, I was scared, and so that means my mind somehow obfuscated the features that should have told me, I was seeing a bear? The "It was a Bear" scenario is an interesting one. makes me think of how many times, someone saw a potential Squatch, and convinced themselves it was just a bear? And therefore, never reported it. Interesting.

Skunkfoot

[Guest]

... The "It was a Bear" scenario is an interesting one. makes me think of how many times, someone saw a potential Squatch, and convinced themselves it was just a bear? And therefore, never reported it. Interesting.

Skunkfoot

That is interesting. If bigfoot is a real animal then I'm sure there are people that have associated a sighting with something "known" like a bear.

[Guest Moregon]

Not necessarily. Fairies and other varieties of little people are still believed to live in parts of Great Britain by some.

In fact I believe before you cross a certain bridge on the Isle of Man, it is considered wise to acknowledge the little people who apparently live under said bridge.

Let's also not forget the "Menehune" of Hawaii. Some still believe they exist and more than a few from the Islands that I've talked to refuse to discuss them. Doing so seems to make then uneasy as if they are afraid of them for one reason or another.

[Guest]

Just a heads up, we're not going to be allowing multiple accounts registered to one person. So far we haven't found that to be the case [or if it was, it was handled before I was promoted the other day] and for right now, everything is on the up-and-up. If we find anyone with multiple accounts, we'll shut down all but the primaries. Once the official rules go up, there will most likely be more severe punishment.

But as I said, everything is all good now so carry on with the discussion, sans smurfing allegations. Thanks.

[Guest]

Yet with proof we would have a valid, natural, biological and mundane explanation for the myth. How would it then be any different than a bear sighting? We don't accuse people of not knowing their wildlife when they see bears.

Scenario: bigfoot gets hauled in to a lab as a logging truck's hood ornament.

Question: In the aftermath of the discovery, would you expect the number of bogus sightings to increase or decrease?

[Guest]

If BF was proven to be real tomorrow, . . . Why not devote time, energy, resources, to learning about this newly-discovered animal?

Because, presumably, bigfoot would be just as rare and difficult to study the day after tomorrow as it is today. So anecdotal accounts could be important perhaps for developing hypotheses for the study of the real animal, but they'd be no less problematic to work with because of the low probability that any given one actually provides evidence of that real animal.

[bipedalist]

These people are immune to lying, substance abuse, mental illness, optical illusion, hallucination, and ever being wrong about what they claim to have experienced?

The fact that some people are more experienced in the field in others does not suggest that their brain function is qualitatively different. In fact, I'd wager that "woodspeople" are more likely than city folk to spread bigfoot mythology.

I'll play. Let's assume a traditional disability approach that is a little on the liberal side; let's say 20 percent of the population is impaired in some way and that explains away their sighting. That leaves 80 percent of probably reliable reporters. I would then add that outdoors men/women would be more likely than city folk to relate that 80 percent in highly effective, reliable ways but we still have those 80 percent of cityfolk with pretty good brains . Assuming daylight sightings at 100 ft. or less, on open ground and I would expect the stats to be more toward the "count it as squatch" end of the equation, city folk or woods-wise irrespective. I'll even throw you in an extra 10 percent for all those "tainted" by ever having been interested in or read about BF before as long as you give me 2 1/2 percent back for all those witnesses that are able to describe to an artist details of what they saw or able to make a graphic representation themselves. Adds up to a little more than a "myth" for me but of course I'm biased

[Drew]

I'll play. Let's assume a traditional disability approach that is a little on the liberal side; let's say 20 percent of the population is impaired in some way and that explains away their sighting. That leaves 80 percent of probably reliable reporters.

What do your numbers do, if, hypothetically, 90% of Bigfoot reports were from the 20% of people that are prone to hallucinations, and or making stuff up?

[Guest]

. . .as long as you give me 2 1/2 percent back for all those witnesses that are able to describe to an artist details of what they saw or able to make a graphic representation themselves. Adds up to a little more than a "myth" for me but of course I'm biased

If 2.5% of alleged eyewitnesses can draw a bigfoot, that makes bigfoot real? Good to know.

BTW, I don't see in your estimates a percentage of people simply making up their stories.

[Guest gershake]

These people are immune to lying, substance abuse, mental illness, optical illusion, hallucination, and ever being wrong about what they claim to have experienced?

The fact that some people are more experienced in the field in others does not suggest that their brain function is qualitatively different.  In fact, I'd wager that "woodspeople" are more likely than city folk to spread bigfoot mythology.  For one, their outdoor experience lends an air of matter-of-factness and credibility (e.g., "I've seen a lot of bears and this was no bear!").  They're also more likely (at least pre-Internet) to be familiar with local legends originated by Native Americans and others.  Here are a few experienced woodsmen who come to mind . . .

Ray Wallace

Cliff Crook

Paul Freeman

Roger Patterson

edited to fix parenthesis

It took me a while to find out what I thought was wrong with this post. Namely: Ray, Cliff, Paul and Roger all had a motive to hoax - money. Sending in a report to BFRO won't get you a single cent. It won't give you attention either because your real name isn't mentioned.

[southernyahoo]

Scenario: bigfoot gets hauled in to a lab as a logging truck's hood ornament.

Question: In the aftermath of the discovery, would you expect the number of bogus sightings to increase or decrease?

The total number of reports would rise sharply in my opinion. The ratio of bogus vs. legitamate reports might stay the same, though a person not yet convinced by the evidence, wouldn't likely find better reason to file a bogus report, meanwhile the legitimate witnesses would feel more at ease to come forward. I know for a fact there are many sightings that don't get reported because of the negative attention it can bring.