Are Bigfoot Believers Too Eager To Believe?

[BobbyO]

I have seen you presented with new evidence and have watched your opinion change. That is good science and, dare I say it? Good scepticism. It is the rational people like you that keep me still interested and open to the possiblity that sasquatch exists because you have had what you are convinced is a sighting of a sasquatch and I cannot in all good concience call you a liar or charlatan or whatever else because I have seen your analytical skills demonstrated here on this forum. (Now that I have said that I hope you're not some genius level serial killer behind bars somewhere having fun with us )

I have a little saying that i go through my life with Transformer that keeps things very straight forward " It is, what it is ".

If something is " wrong " i'll call it, undoubtedly.

It confuses me when others don't follow that kind of thinking personally as to me, it is the only way to be but it takes all sorts to make a world i guess.

& remember, i don't need to hang on to certain things within this subject to 1 ) To try and convince myself or 2 ) To try and convince others like many try to do, but which i have no interest in at all.

[Guest]

Is it more important to nail hoaxers and ID false evidence or to encourage submission of true evidence?

We KNOW that videos, photos, prints, sounds, and reports can be artfully faked nowadays. To point that out is just unnecessary and tedious. We know some people fake it.

We also know that people with real experiences and evidence are driven away by the doubt, ridicule, and manhandling they suffer on sites like this one.

Take that new trackway. If it is legit, the guys should be encouraged to share it. If it's not legit, time will tell. So relax, dammit. Accusations and fine-detail criticism of the prints are premature. Just IMO.

The doubt you experience when evaluating evidence can be a symptom of the cognitive dissonance. It's common to say, No, it cannot be real! and extend that to evidence others present.

IMO it's better to take an encouraging stand on evidence brought forward than to chill the atmosphere so evidence is kept private.

There is no way to ever prove that trackway is legitimate, and yes, fine detail analysis is exactly what is needed to rule out other possible causes. That said, the analysis should be done on site as well as looking at everything else. The issue might be posting up evidence too prematurely if one thinks the criticism isn't warranted, of course we are going to voice our opinions. Do those opinions from an anonymous poster on a forum really matter? Not to me.

Edited September 29, 2012 by CTfoot

[Guest]

not to derail, but speaking of putting ideas in your head...

I have no idea how this works, or why it does, but I got the "correct" answer, curious to see it it works on you guy's/gal's as well....

[Guest]

^ given the time constraints afforded in the video the common answer would be natural because how easily it rolls off the tongue. I think something like maroon screwdriver would take a lot of effort to come up within a second or so.

[Guest]

Why is it the common answer though?

[Guest]

^ I can agree with you, CTfoot, that maybe presentation of the evidence was premature. I think probably they were just excited and wanted to share the news. Perfectly human behavior for amateurs, such as most of us are.

And I'd also agree evaluation should be on site, not via photos and the internet. You have to see that kind of thing in person. Footprints are supposed to be such good evidence, and, to a professional, maybe they are. From my point of view, they are transitory, fakable maybe, don't photograph well, and are hard for an amateur to interpret correctly, I think. Let alone interpret from photos. So debate about them based on photos is also premature, perhaps.

[ohiobill]

Wouldn't it be better to assume that all non-witnessed evidence is a hoax until it's proven otherwise? Nobody's feelings would get hurt and the same amount of time/energy spent in proving it legitimate would be expended as compared to what happens now when that energy is wasted on defending the evidence before it is even investigated.

I agree that on-site investigation is superior to internet photos but that doesn't mean that work can't be done over the internet. If millions of folks can go to work/school online I think we can agree that hobbyists can overcome the limitations inherent in long distance bigfoot investigation. Professionals watch videos/photos too when working and are able to give their advice/opinions when necessary. Instead of a thread about psychic bigfoot let's have a thread on properly lighting and photographing tracks or how to cast a track for the best dermal ridge retention or how to do a prelimanary site survey and overlay it on a google satellite map so that any evidence found can actually be investigated rather than just believed.

There seem to be some really intelligent folks on here who could contribute rather than just argue w/o investigation but a change in the mindset of the forum will have to take place before it can really work. The days of blindly defending something that hasn't even been seen will have to be put behind regardless of who is involved and standardization will have to be learned and adhered to before a lasting positive change will be seen. If serious scientists are to be recruited it will be necessary to give them something serious to study.

[dopelyrics]

Ohiobill that is an excellent post, you make some really great points. BFSleuth does too when he says that going to the original Youtube video and investigating that first should be a starting point.

One of FBFB's criterion for "authentification" is how many views it has had; the fewer the more likely it is to be real: "We saw this video and it had just six views". Or, "someone anonymous posted this and we found it". This kind of thing has been adopted by many as legitimate reasons for a video to be genuine. Why?

There are many people who state that someone can't have a legitimate view on a video unless they have been out in to the forest. That's not a view I subscribe too - admittedly because I have never been into the forest, nor am I likely too! But also because I don't feel it is a pre-requisite to have an opinion on a video. ohiobill alludes to this when he talks about professionals looking at videos and people using the internet for learning and working and I feel that is spot on.

Generally, there are only two starting points when people are evaluating a video: it shows a real Bigfoot or it is a hoax. Yes, there are those who state from the beginning they are not sure, that it is interesting etc'. People on either side are immediately defending their viewpoint and working backwards from there - "It's real because it has a coned head or "it's fake because the arms aren't long enough".

For a moment, let's forget those people who say "It's fake because Bigfoot doesn't exist". That's not to say the closed-minded skeptics won't have anything to offer, I'm sure they will.

Standardizing how we evaluate a video should be an enormous help to everyone, I think that is such a good idea, ohiobill. And there are a lot of people on this site who have expertise in lots of areas who can help I'm sure. Maybe we should all get our heads together and come up with something linear. I don't think it will definitely prove a video is real, but it may help to weed out the hoaxes which is a start.

Krakatoa I really enjoyed your post, too. Excellent. I have seen the programme you posted, very interesting,

Best regards,

Lee

Edited September 30, 2012 by dopelyrics

[BobbyO]

One of FBFB's criterion for "authentification" is how many views it has had; the fewer the more likely it is to be real: "We saw this video and it had just six views". Or, "someone anonymous posted this and we found it". This kind of thing has been adopted by many as legitimate reasons for a video to be genuine. Why?

Lee

Is that definite Lee ?

That's obscene if so..

[norseman]

Hello there,

First of all, let me state clearly that, every day of the week, I at least believe in the possibility that Bigfoot exists. For most of those days, I think it probably does.

Events over the last few days (you’ve got it – the Facebook Find Bigfoot debacle) has raised the question to me – are Bigfoot believers necessarily more eager to believe than the “general†public?

I am not talking about anyone specifically on this forum, but generally - with the FBFB site in mind. I’m sure you’ve read the comments on a lot of the video “authentificationsâ€.

What I find is that, with a lot of people, whenever a new video comes through the door, objectivity is thrown through the window. Is that because they are eager to believe, or is it because they are so eager to believe that Bigfoot is real that they perhaps park common sense aside?

Or is it simply that looking at a video is entirely subjective? So whether you are a believer or not, you might see something someone else doesn’t.

As a very keen amateur magician and mentalist, I have a lot of experience of deceiving people (purely for entertainment purposes). On the mentalism side especially, people are very quick to believe I may have special powers, even when I tell them that I am fooling them. I have had many people ask if I can tell see their into their past and their future (yes I can, but of course it is a parlour trick), even contact lost ones. I’m serious. This is after I’ve told people that I am tricking them. The point is they want to believe. Maybe it is just human nature.

Any thoughts?

Best.

Lee

I think a couple of things are going on.........the first is as you've stated, they are very eager to believe. And they are very eager to support their position with sometimes rather dubious evidence. Of course all of this is subjective.......some people and experts believe the PGF is 100 percent real...........others its a blatant hoax............one thing we can be sure of it's NOT a bear!

The second one is the lack of bushcraft........most people have little idea of what they are actually looking at and it's easy to attribute it to Sasquatch.

[Guest MrMudder]

I'm a believer, but I don't subscribe to the PGF. I'm a believer only because of a couple odd things in my life. The kicker for me is my first, and closest, episode. When my then-girlfriend and I were driving along a backroad by the river in our late teens at 2am with the windows down, and what could've only been a very heavy biped running near the left-rear of car at 25-35 mph. We didn't see it, but we surely heard it. I immediately put on the gas. I'm not sure if I'd believe or not without my experiences.

[dopelyrics]

BobbyO - yes, many of the videos they authenticate are referenced by the number of hits they have had on youtube.

Best.

Lee

[Guest mdhunter]

^ Have to agree with Bobby, that's obscene. I seldom listen to the guy but have seen/heard the "just x # of views" comments. I didn't understand his point.