dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Those people had news reports to plant the idea in their head before they called in. It's not like they woke up one day and came up with panda all on their own. Edited June 28, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Well, right. And they called because they saw something that looked to them like the thing being looked for. As most of them hadn't seen a red panda in the flesh before, there were mistakes...that got reported because people knew the information was being looked for. The reason I can't Just Believe that folks are wrong about wood ape sightings is that the motivations are just all wrong. It's not like there's any APB out for this info. I wouldn't report one, no way, unless it were beyond question what I'd seen. And it's kind of hard to confuse one of those with anything else. The naive take on "Finding Bigfoot" and its impact on sightings is that folks are just calling in bad info for fun. I have no doubt that this is happening. But I doubt any prank calls wind up with an investigator on site; and it's just as easy to say - and easier if one is reading them - that the reports are happening because the show not only confers cred on the topic, but tells people specifically where to report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) It's not like there is a TV show or anything...wait a second.. Your trust in your fellow man is touching. Misplaced, mind you.. Though it is a bit odd how you reserve that trust for people spinning Bigfoot yarns. Anything contrary to that and to heck with you, I'm not listening!! Edited June 28, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Yes there is. And it's telling people, on a regular basis: seen a sasquatch? Here's where to report it. Each set of new reports to the database shows encounters from this or the prior calendar year. That never happened before the TV show. That it's happening now can be easily explained by the sentence above. If one insists that all those reports are bunk because it's people just hoaxing Cliff and Bobo: let me see your proof. Otherwise you are asking me to Just Believe something. I go with evidence. Nothing else works. So you think I'm going to be gullible enough to Just Believe Dmaker? I'd rather go with evidence that he's wrong...which remains to be proven. No faith. You're doing that. I run on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Please prove to me that it is not people hoaxing good ole Cliff and Bobo. K, thanks. Wake me up when you has Monkey. Edited June 28, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 DWA, why do you recognize no benefit to reporting a bigfoot sighting? Heck, these days, one can even turn a bigfoot story into 15 minutes of fame on national television. That is a powerful motivator for a great many people. Reporting a bigfoot confers a great deal of status with a subset of the population who enjoy the bigfoot phenomenon. It's the key to membership in the elite group of "knowers." Surely, you've seen how that term has taken off in recent years. As a corollary, I can describe my latest exploit to find a rare bird to add to my life list, and one subset of people will consider me quite the boss for the money I spent to get to it, how cold/hot/buggy it was to access it, and generally how I might have stressed myself out all for the pleasure of seeing something for a split second. That behavior on my part would also open me up to ridicule from a larger subset of people who certainly do think I'm odd to invest so much in something that means nothing to them. Of course, the other big thing you ignore with your focus on this "why risk the ridicule" thing is that many people who report seeing bigfoots are actually convinced that they saw a bigfoot. In other words, they don't care what anyone else might say, they know what they saw and it was bigfoot. So they report it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Please prove to me that it is not people hoaxing good ole Cliff and Bobo. K, thanks. Wake me up when you has Monkey. Well, that's the usual weak sauce. Nothing's proven until it's proven. Some of us are just curious, wide awake to boot, and scrutinizing evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 DWA, why do you recognize no benefit to reporting a bigfoot sighting? Heck, these days, one can even turn a bigfoot story into 15 minutes of fame on national television. That is a powerful motivator for a great many people. Reporting a bigfoot confers a great deal of status with a subset of the population who enjoy the bigfoot phenomenon. It's the key to membership in the elite group of "knowers." Surely, you've seen how that term has taken off in recent years. Sorry, but I'm not buying the "everybody's doin' it!" approach to this. It's an easy out to claim "oh science is interested!" when, if the mainstream truly were, sasquatch would have been proven by the end of 1968. (I get to make assumptions too...there's just evidence backing mine up.) A great many people? Only a partial list would be helpful. Sorry, but that's not happening. People know that ridicule and sasquatch go together like snow and winter. This is why, when the mainstream media have the latest "I think I..." the witness is usually not named or shown, and the voice is frequently masked. Sure, naive or devil-may-care people set themselves up for laughs. So it will always be. As a corollary, I can describe my latest exploit to find a rare bird to add to my life list, and one subset of people will consider me quite the boss for the money I spent to get to it, how cold/hot/buggy it was to access it, and generally how I might have stressed myself out all for the pleasure of seeing something for a split second. That behavior on my part would also open me up to ridicule from a larger subset of people who certainly do think I'm odd to invest so much in something that means nothing to them. This is nothing like birding - an enterprise, like astronomy, in which dedicated amateurs are valued contributors who are taken seriously. Many people do think birding is odd. I'd make fun of most of those people. Like me - a bit of a casual birder myself - birders laugh, and ignore them. Bigfooters aren't laughing. They're frustrated. No one believes them who carries any water. Come ON. You're in for a trip to AK and a free steak if you're wrong, and you're trying this hard not to be....? (I think I remember that deal right...nice deal if you can get it...I'm wrong, pay me...!) Of course, the other big thing you ignore with your focus on this "why risk the ridicule" thing is that many people who report seeing bigfoots are actually convinced that they saw a bigfoot. In other words, they don't care what anyone else might say, they know what they saw and it was bigfoot. So they report it. Yep. Many naive people are convinced that their sighting is Societal Proof and "you! must! BELIEVE! ME!" Um, well, nosir, we dinna have to. Where's your proof? I've read so many of those that...well, it's really funny the ways people can be. Credulous; in denial; and thank God for Jeff Meldrum everything in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 ^So, you'd like to go on record that you see no benefit to reporting a bigfoot sighting? You simply refuse to acknowledge that people can be motivated to do something that opens them to ridicule by an increase in status among a particular social set? If this is an accurate representation of your position, then I can at least begin to see why you must assume every sighting reported to be true, because it was reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Well, if that's an accurate representation of what you consider a parallel to the sasquatch situation, I can begin to see some things too. How much good clean fun, not to say "SUPERfan," is in store for somebody reporting a bigfoot sighting? And once again you misrepresent my position. Why do you insist on doing that? You Truly Believe they're all mistaken. Me? I demand evidence. BTW: I already answered your question: Birders. Sure you'll do it, if there is significant payback. Comb the archives and show me the 'significant payback' for one sasquatch sighting. Show me Patterson's payback for a MOVIE OF ONE, ferpetesake. Oh. Here it is. http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Bigfoot-Inside-Story/dp/1591021391/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372442624&sr=8-1&keywords=greg+long+bigfoot I mean, with total revenues to date, Patterson's family might be able to buy out a printing of that garb...ook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Please prove to me that it is not people hoaxing good ole Cliff and Bobo. K, thanks. Wake me up when you has Monkey. Ape. Monkeys are quite different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) Got to ask, Saskeptic....what was the bird you added to your life list on that expedition? And dmaker, I would tend to conclude Norse's recruitment failures to date are what one would typically experience. Here's the advert: Wanted: Individual with encyclopedic knowledge of local backcountry conditions, proficient in tracking over barren and broken ground and use of large caliber firearms. Must be wiling to expend considerable time (possibly months or years) and effort to attempt killing of overwhelmingly large and fierce biped widely believed to not exist. IF killed, candidate can expect to be assaulted from ambush by members of quarry's social group, who are reported to possess lightning speed, night vision acuity, uncanny hearing and sense of smell. IF candidate succeeds, he/she can be expected to change identity to avoid overwhelming media coverage and death threats from antagonistic anti-kill BF proponents. Must accept alienation and probably divorce. No benefits provided. Must supply all transportation, materiel, ammunition and life insurance. Orphans preferred. Yep, my guess is they are just going to be beating down his door, am I right Norse? Edited June 28, 2013 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Why thank God for Jeff Meldrum?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Well maybe you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I was asking why you do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts