Why Are You Convinced They Exist?

[Guest]

Are all mistakes 100% of the time?

No, but just because they're more or less experts doesn't mean that they're free from making mistakes or errors. This is the human element and it must be accounted for dealing with eyewitness testimonials.

[Guest Cowlitz2]

Of course Leftfoot, statistical error is always in play, but it is NOT 100%! When we are talking 1000's of investigated reports and skeptics say NO way then they are wrong. That is my last comment on this thread, it is pointless to contend any further.

[Guest]

Of course Leftfoot, statistical error is always in play, but it is NOT 100%!

I'm not sure what you mean about stastical error, or what it has to do with this conversation but eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/trialevidence/articles/winterspring2012-0512-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable.html

If 'sincere sounding testimony' can put an innocent man bars, than forgive me if I choose not to take eyewitness claims of Bigfoot with no collaborating evidence at face value.

When we are talking 1000's of investigated reports and skeptics say NO way then they are wrong.

So, each and every eyewitness account of a Bigfoot is true regardless of reliability?

That is my last comment on this thread, it is pointless to contend any further.

Shame about that. I was looking forward to you sharing more of your nuggets of wisdom.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Guest DantheMan]

Mounds of compelling evidence, reports that span centuries and then there's always the personal experience of being out in the extremely vast wilderness and knowing it would be easy to hide from man kind if one had the instincts to do so.

[Rockape]

No, but just because they're more or less experts doesn't mean that they're free from making mistakes or errors. This is the human element and it must be accounted for dealing with eyewitness testimonials.

And of course that also means you could be wrong. Just sayin'.

So, each and every eyewitness account of a Bigfoot is true regardless of reliability?

No one is saying that. I myself believe very few reports. However, if only 10% of all reports over time are true, then that means there IS something out there.

So that is sort of how I approach it. Most of the evidence is worthless, but not all, and that's why I believe they probably do exist. I can't say with certainty that they DO exist, as I have never seen one and we still don't have the hard evidence that science requires to recognize them.

[Guest]

If only one report is true, then its real. I think a high percentage of reports are misidentifications or overactive imaginations. I also believe that a high percentage of non reports are misidentifications and rationalizations of seeing a real unknown creature and assuming it was a bear or big person in a overcoat or something. And in some just a refusal to process what was seen heard smelled due to mental or emotional laziness, and a desire to keep ones world view and a desire to not want to be terrified to go in the woods or wherever. I dont believe all the people who claim sightings. I do believe the ones I believe without qualification. And I may not believe anyones description of what they sound like. but I do believe my own ears.

And my own logical conclusions. I am left with the conclusion that the people whom I do believe saw one, either saw one, or where victims of a super realisitc hoax, most times in random places and random times with no one knowing the plans or locations of the viewers, at random times. again with no one knowing of the plans of the viewer, with the creature doing random things like real things do. I heard something which was either a really well done hoax, done by a really dedicated hoaxer who humped a great sound system miles through the forest through some pretty rugged terrain, crossed two creeks and set up and blasted high fidelity vocals toward my house while i was inside in the hopes that I or someone would hear them at one oclock in the middle of the night. And was Beast master enough to bring two separate packs of coyotes for addidtional sound effects. Or the more simpler answer is a really big creature with a grammy award winning set of lungs started hollering and got all the other animals upset to a frenzy. This incident was not ambiguous. This thing was loud, real loud. I heard it while sitting on my couch. It was clear. The coyotes were close enough i could hear their jaws snapping together they were insanely upset. two packs of them one on one side and one on the other side of the unknown sound. My dog, who is not a member of this forum and is a somewhat disinterested party regarding the unknown, certainly though it was something unusual, refusing to go past our porch and to her credit she stayed between the sound and me. wouldnt let me get ahead of her. I believe my dog. she felt it necessary to protect me. So i tend to believe what i believe.

[Guest]

I'm convinced because of the hundreds of years of reports and stories from Natives made before a white guy ever set foot on this continent. That and PGF. Every thing since then is suspect in my book.

[Guest]

I don't believe completely. I believe in the possibility, and perhaps I do that simply because I want them to be real. I question each sighting report, picture, video/audio as well as my own intentions for believing in the possibility. And sometimes the more I process reports in my own mind, the more skeptical I become.

With all that being said - the most compelling evidence for me is the history of reports going back hundreds of years.

[Guest]

No, but just because they're more or less experts doesn't mean that they're free from making mistakes or errors. This is the human element and it must be accounted for dealing with eyewitness testimonials.

And of course that also means you could be wrong. Just sayin'.

Wrong about what, specifically?

I'm convinced because of the hundreds of years of reports and stories from Natives made before a white guy ever set foot on this continent.

Because some primitive people living in the wilds had folk lore that have been unverified and has to be shoe horned to fit Bigfoot and was passed around orally, that makes Bigfoot real? Color me skeptical.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Rockape]

No, but just because they're more or less experts doesn't mean that they're free from making mistakes or errors. This is the human element and it must be accounted for dealing with eyewitness testimonials.

And of course that also means you could be wrong. Just sayin'.

Wrong about what, specifically?

Just pointing out you could also be wrong (and myself as well really) that most eyewitness reports are mistakes.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I have had an encounter, but I will respond since I did believe before this occurred. But to be honest I probably was not 100% sure these creatures existed, but I was fairly confident. I suppose I should say that I still harbored a bit of doubt, since there were so many educated and informed people saying that it was not possible for sasquatch to exist and have gone undetected for so long. But I believed more than I doubted. I would read books on bigfoot off and on as I was growing up, and I think what struck me the most was the fact that there were so many similar descriptions from various individuals and groups of people, all over the US and even the world, and I just could not imagine so many correlations appearing in these stories if everyone were just making them up.

I have always had faith in peoples' ability to judge what they were seeing, and never really accepted that so many people could be misidentifying animals, especially considering the sheer amount of encounters reported by hunters and woodsmen, who are familiar with most things they will encounter when hunting or hiking or whatever. So even though I knew some people would misidentify animals, and some people would make up stories and create hoaxes, I never thought those numbers were sufficient enough to account for the sheer volume and detail of sighting reports. I could always appreciate that there would be those who thought we would have found such a creature by now if it really existed, but I felt that those with this point of view were being narrow minded, for multiple reasons.

Mainly because it seemed as if everyone were putting it off on someone else. What I mean is that someone will think "I won't attempt to document this animal, because if it were real, someone would have done it already." I do not think that as much now as I did when I was younger, but I would be willing to bet that this is a part of the problem even today. But I have always maintained as well that most disbelievers do not fully appreciate the intelligence of these animals, and do not appreciate their ability to remain undetected. If you analyze sighting reports, which is our only real window into sasquatch behavior, one starts to see that much of the behavior of these animals is geared towards remaining undetected. Even the fact that they are not violent towards humans could be a sign of their intelligence, if they realize that this would not produce a good outcome for them. So instead of hurting people who come into their territory, instead they have learned to avoid people alltogether. Of course there are exceptions, which is to be expected, especially in a large population where there will be more variation.

Something to remember is that intelligence is apt to breed individual thinking, and individual action, which may not be identical to the actions of the majority of the population. So there are going to be individuals within the population that do not adhere to the norms that apply to the majority of the population. And the larger the population gets, the more variation that will be seen. Plus, we are viewing sasquatch through an extremely narrow window. Everything we know is pretty much speculation, although I do think sighting report correlations do give us a good idea as to what we can expect behavior-wise from these animals. And there are a plethora of other reasons that had me believing sasquatch existed, well before I had a sighting of my own. My sighting was not all that long ago. I know that it occurred not long after I joined these forums, as that was when I actually began to organize small "camping" trips to look for bigfoot. I say camping because those who I convinced to go with me had no interest whatsoever in bigfoot. And I was not about to go by myself, lol.

Anyway, some of these other reasons are things like the numerous casts and hair samples, even odd DNA results here and there. Also, other various pieces of physical evidence, of which there is very little. But the main thing to me were the sighting reports, as I found most of them credible. Even when it was hard to believe some of the more outlandish stories, like the Ostman encounter, there were still the run of the mill reports by the hundreds to fall back on. But for the record I do thin that Ostman was likely telling the truth. Stories like that have me wondering about how many other crazy but true encounters have taken place over the years, only to be forgotten and never documented. Especially encounters that occurred in the 19th century or even earlier, when even getting a story in print was a chore. But there are a handful of accounts from those olden times that I find really incredible. Even mundane stories like explorers finding huge humanlike footprints. I think this was a good question to ask the members of this board, as it gets right to the heart of the belief-disbelief issue. The whys and why nots laid out for everyone to see.

[indiefoot]

I looked for evidence, I studied the evidence, and I verified what I had witnessed to my satisfaction.

[Guest]

As a child it has to be the impact of first seeing the PGF & the loving introduction through the 80s classic Bigfoot & the Hendersons (given to me for xmas as a kid along with a smashing Michael Jackson cartoon transfer tshirt from the BAD era).

As an adult further study of sightings reported by individuals with a lot to lose and a great respect for the inherit belief of BF in native cultures across the globe (Aborignals Yowie, Sherpas Yeti etc). Loren Colemans book Bigfoot has a great chapter on Native American understanding of squatch which is good informative read.

[Guest]

@jiggy. Sound reasoning to me. I feel much the same way, but I'll wait for the official discovery, if I can help it. I've discovered that I may have spent a great deal of time on some BF stomping ground in VA. I'll be there in May, again. I'll certainly be scoping out the edge of the woods this year.

[Guest]

And likes to make wood knocks in the forest

I never got this one. Why can't 'wood knocks' be someone cutting down a tree in the distance with an axe or just normal wood noises?

I'd imagine that sometimes they are, and are misinterpreted. Woodpeckers, axe chopping, wind blowing trees into one another, and hoaxing are likely explanations for some occurrences for sure. But, when you are in some remote country, and are hearing them going back and forth between one another, it's pretty compelling stuff. I guess you'd have to experience it to truly appreciate it.