Scientific 'proof' ? (For Total Skeptics)

[Guest]

Ok, not that I am against skeptics, the more the merrier, but....

 

IF, for example, you go to the  BFRO site, you will see HUNDEREDS of "Bigfoot' sightings, sounds, weird happenings, but lets just focus on Class A, sightings.

 

So, if soooooooooo many people in EVERY STATE are having 'sightings' of BF and describing regional differences for example, not to mention a certain smell, and are lying (probably some are, 2%?)....ok so

 

What is the Psycological term for people who call up the Forest Service or other Government agentcies and report a BF sighting, including those who just post at online sites (if there is NO SUCH THING) as a BF?

 

Even if this is some type of prank, it would be or should be considered a mental illness, nes pa?

 

On the other side of the coin, its guestamated only 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 people report thier sightings. So what is the clinical definition of people who withhold thier personal experience with BF? There MUST be some info on this raging clinical disorder?????

 

This is for those who think BF is totally hooey, no matter what except a body. Which is fine with me.

 

And ah, ya can't make it up, whats the clinical definition?? What are the symptoms? Where is your 'proof' of this blatent socio-disorder?

Edited May 12, 2013 by Wag

[dmaker]

You might want to start with reading this:

 

 

http://issuu.com/kristylabardee/docs/paranormal_gestalt_phenomena

Edited May 13, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

Ok, not that I am against skeptics, the more the merrier, but....

 

IF, for example, you go to the  BFRO site, you will see HUNDEREDS of "Bigfoot' sightings, sounds, weird happenings, but lets just focus on Class A, sightings.

 

So, if soooooooooo many people in EVERY STATE are having 'sightings' of BF and describing regional differences for example, not to mention a certain smell, and are lying (probably some are, 2%?)....ok so

 

What is the Psycological term for people who call up the Forest Service or other Government agentcies and report a BF sighting, including those who just post at online sites (if there is NO SUCH THING) as a BF?

 

Pranksters?

 

Even if this is some type of prank, it would be or should be considered a mental illness, nes pa?

Pranking, no. Lying? Again,no.  

 

On the other side of the coin, its guestamated only 1 in 10 to 1 in 100 people report thier sightings. So what is the clinical definition of people who withhold thier personal experience with BF? There MUST be some info on this raging clinical disorder?????

 Uncertain?  

This is for those who think BF is totally hooey, no matter what except a body. Which is fine with me.

 

And ah, ya can't make it up, whats the clinical definition?? What are the symptoms? Where is your 'proof' of this blatent socio-disorder?

Nice try, but I'm not a licensed psychologist. I can believe someone to be lying without having to know what pathology drives their actions.

[Old Dog]

I know you asked this of "total skeptics", but I had to answer anyway.  Someone who lies on a constant basis is termed "Pseudologia fantastica"

 

I would imagine this term would also apply to those who called government agencies and made false reports, since it would also be a lie.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Old Dog

[Guest]

I am a total skeptic that  the witness accounts, tracks, bad video, and weird sound recordings are all due to any set of psychological disorders.  Some maybe, all no.  

 

I am also a skeptic, total, of those who claim no evidence and clearly haven't looked too hard, or look and only find supporting hoaxes or psycho problems and cling to those as believers cling to Enoch....extremes, polar opposites (and not!)

 

I think it would all go more smoothly if no one felt so invested in the outcome...what/who/right or wrong..money or no.....and we did just follow the data.  

 

I am skeptical just BFers could muck this up so badly the past fifty years....

Edited May 13, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

From what I've seen, mental disorders and misidentification don't account for many Bigfoot sightings. One thing that does though, is people making their story up.

[MIB]

Suppose someone presented a theory that made the pieces I had fit fairly neatly together.   It passed scientific muster by having predictive capability, both a sort of interpolation where things that had already happened that I was unaware of fell in line as predicted and extrapolation where things which had not happened yet also fell in line.

 

Now ... we wait.

 

MIB

[Guest]

Ok, so we can track these people using, for example, the BFRO website with its thousand or so sightings, in every state.

 

-So, what is the mechanism that these people come up with similar experiences? (AKA: The Old Hag Syndrome when you are paralysed but awake, with an old hag sitting on your chest. - This is a sort of confirmed psycological experience)

BF reports exist before many people had the internet. How did they maintain similarities in thier accounts?

 

-Also, the people that do interviews many have had BF experiences. So are they mearly enablers? They usually are also skeptical of BF reports at times.

 

And still, no clinical definition specific to BFers.

 

One has to consider that alot of sightings are not 'clear in the open' either.

 

And what about the 'wet dog' skunk smell? This is reported by many, but probably not even 50%. Is this folklore?

 

And how is the myth, mental transdisposition  transfered? (yes, I just invented that word)

 

 

(Also, I will be away for a week or so, so that is why I don't keep up. Hopefully someone can fill in.)

From what I've seen, mental disorders and misidentification don't account for many Bigfoot sightings. One thing that does though, is people making their story up.

 

 

Ok, so are they using a common myth to go off of? Sure, some people faked footprints in the 70's, but then the Anthropologist at Idaho U found some that had dermal ridges. Then he found another set 100 miles away with the same dermal ridges. Is he also a willing or socio-partisipant in the myth, or was he hoaxed. I guess I am getting specific on this one.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Wag

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I think I know which documentary that's from. It's actually been proven that these so called dermal ridges that run vertically on casts are casting artifacts and not actual dermal ridges http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

 

They do look very realistic though. Realistic enough to fool the "bigfoot experts" 

Edited May 13, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Old Dog]

WAG~

 

"BF reports exist before many people had the internet. How did they maintain similarities in thier accounts?"

 

The reports exist, as do the similarities, because our society, past and present, does not exist in a vacuum.  People travel and intermingle with others.  In the distant past, instead of sitting around the computer or television, they would sit around the fire and trade stories for entertainment.

Suppose someone presented a theory that made the pieces I had fit fairly neatly together.   It passed scientific muster by having predictive capability, both a sort of interpolation where things that had already happened that I was unaware of fell in line as predicted and extrapolation where things which had not happened yet also fell in line.

 

Now ... we wait.

 

MIB

 

Is there a question there, or just presenting a supposition?

[Guest]

I consider myself an optimistic skeptic - so I'm assuming that I'm qualified to respond to this post.  I must begin by saying that I've never had a personal experience with anything which could be attributed to Bigfoot.  I find many of the sightings, the track casts, the audio recordings, ect, compelling.  I don't dispute what another person has experienced from their perspective.  But until there is undisputed proof of the existence of Bigfoot, being skeptical is a valid position.  I don't feel that it takes mental illness or some type of disorder for someone to have an experience which cannot be explained by our current scientific understanding of the world.  I have respect for anyone who feels that they can believe in Bigfoot based on their personal experience and/or the evidence at hand.  It doesn't seem to me that this situation is complicated, just diversity of opinion.  I am aware that even though I don't believe, Bigfoot may in fact exist.  Therefore any claims of the existence of Bigfoot are simply that - claims.  I support research efforts and do some myself.  I wouldn't put forth the effort if I felt there was no possibility that Bigfoot existed.  If I have a personal experience sighting then I may come to believe as well, but I'm fully aware that until the undisputed proof is presented, my perspective will be belief and nothing more and I'm fine with that.  

[Guest]

 

Interesting.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Guitarman

[Guest wudewasa]

A really good read from the perspective of an open minded skeptic-

 

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/bigfoot_club_skeptic

[Guest]

I think I know which documentary that's from. It's actually been proven that these so called dermal ridges that run vertically on casts are casting artifacts and not actual dermal ridges http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/experiments_cast_doubt_on_bigfoot_evidence

 

They do look very realistic though. Realistic enough to fool the "bigfoot experts" 

Not true. SOME alleged dermals MAY be casting artefacts, but tracks have been photographed IN SITU prior to casting that demonstrate dermals and furthermore the random edge lines claimed to be casting artifacts are in fact NOT the same thing as the detailed, anatomically correct dermatoglyphics identified by researchers such as Mr Chillcut.

in ground track

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=S-0on0fc9z_SkM&tbnid=oXHxTqQ3ZvyT9M:&ved=0CAgQjRwwADgN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbigfootforums.com%2Findex.php%2Ftopic%2F32050-dermal-ridges-or-casting-artifact%2Fpage-2&ei=mBiRUfi_G4fa9ASWjYEw&psig=AFQjCNFVitMUrX2CSqpA60h_wJHfAsp2Mg&ust=1368549912503450

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nNednMXW1hY/UFw6DTcxg0I/AAAAAAABBPw/hrSw70tajYg/s1600/mattfootprint.jpg

on cast

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRliZwDRwPCLILHyAxL66vCmTn8zim-TJ3VUYQrivhfYq6VS4nA

Do a Google search for more.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Mulder

[Guest]

You might want to start with reading this:

 

 

http://issuu.com/kristylabardee/docs/paranormal_gestalt_phenomena

 

fantastic reference, but since it is an actual scientific paper i doubt many here will read it.

 

i'll reference a line from the abstract:  "Cognitively biasing influences of preexisting psychological tendencies may predispose individuals to specific perceptual and cognitive errors during confrontation of real-world phenomena."

 

to paraphrase:  since you think you know where bigfoot lives and what bigfoot looks like, smells like, and behaves like, this bias in decision-making will cause you to see bigfoot anywhere these items appear. 

 

this is absolutely the most simple and comprehensive explanation for widespread bigfoot sightings. 

 

 

EDIT:  this also explains why everything and everywhere is "squatchy" on Finding Bigfoot

Edited May 13, 2013 by slappy